Government Liability Update

School District and Administrators Immune from Liability for Failure to Prevent Student Bullying Allegedly Causing Victim's Off-Campus Suicide

In Leroy v. Yarboi, ordered published November 16, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 2 affirmed summary judgment for the defendant district, its principal, and its assistant principal.  The plaintiffs' decedent, a high school student, suffered from Tourette's Syndrome, sensory integration disorder, and borderline Asperger's Syndrome.  He was in a virtual school program, and attended the high school physically during only two periods.  In one of his classes, several students bullied and harassed the decedent.  The decedent reported one student for harassing him and calling him names.  Both students signed a "no contact" contract agreeing not to have contact with each other.  The day after summer break began, decedent took his own life.  The decedent's parents alleged that the administrators had negligently failed to address and prevent student bullying of the decedent, which caused the decedent to commit suicide; and that the school was vicariously liable for their conduct.  The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that the administrators did not breach their duties to the decedent, and on the ground that Education Code section 44808 immunized the district and administrators from negligence liability.

The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the ground of immunity.  Section 44808 immunizes school districts and their employees from liability for the conduct or safety of students when students are not on school property, unless the district or person has undertaken to provide transportation or a school-sponsored activity, or has otherwise specifically assumed responsibility or liability for off-campus activities.  There is an except for failure to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.  The plaintiffs asserted that the district and administrators failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.  They argued that the immunity did not cover negligent failure to protect a student from bullying on-campus that led to the student's off-campus suicide.  But the weight of authority holds that 44808 immunize districts and employees from liability for student safety outside school property unless the student was or should have been directly supervised during a specific undertaking.  The provision concerning reasonable care refers to failure to exercise reasonable care during one of the undertakings.  Because the decedent committed suicide off-campus during summer break in his home, while he was not and should not have been supervised by any district employee, and no one at the district had assumed responsibility for his well-being, the district and its administrators were immune from liability under section 44808.

"Community Caretaking" Exception to Warrant Requirement Does Not Apply to Homes

In Caniglia v. Strom, published May 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decision from the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirming summary judgment to police officers.  During an argument with his wife, the plaintiff placed a handgun on the dining room table and asked his wife to shoot him.  The wife left the home and spent the night at a hotel.  The next morning, she was unable to reach her husband by phone.  She called the police for a welfare check.  The responding officers went with the wife to the house.  The plaintiff was on the porch.  The officers believed the plaintiff was a threat to himself or others.  They called an ambulance.  The plaintiff agreed to go to the hospital for evaluation after the officers allegedly promised not to confiscate his firearms.  After the ambulance took the plaintiff away, the officers entered the plaintiff's home and seized two handguns.  The plaintiff sued the officers, alleging the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights.  The First Circuit concluded that the officers' entry fell within a "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.  It relied on the decision in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973).

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed.  The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable intrusions onto private property.  Permissible invasions of the home and curtilage include valid warrants, certain exigent circumstances (including the need to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant, or protect an occupant from imminent injury), and acts any private citizens might do (such as knocking on a front door).  The "community caretaking" rule as applied to homes goes beyond what the Supreme Court has recognized.  Cady involved a warrantless search of a firearm in an impounded vehicle, rather than a home.  It was not an open-ended license to perform warrantless searches anywhere.  Three justices wrote separate concurring opinions to emphasize that officers retain the ability to enter homes to take reasonable steps to assist those inside a home in need of aid.

Peace Officers Entitled to Qualified Immunity for Use of Force on Person Preventing Emergency Care and for Search of Vehicle That Is Possible Suicide Site

In Ames v. King County, Washington, published January 13, 2017, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision denying qualified immunity to sheriff's deputies responding to the scene of an attempted suicide.  The plaintiff found her adult son at their house unresponsive and with a suicide note.  She called 911.  A sheriff's deputy responded along with a firefighter/EMT crew.  The plaintiff refused to allow the deputy to enter.  The deputy ordered the emergency crew to leave the house.  As the deputy and EMTs were in their vehicles outside the residence, the mother took the son out of the house and put him in her truck to transport to the hospital.  The deputy blocked the truck with her patrol car, and yelled for the mother to allow the EMTs to treat the son.  When the mother refused, the deputy pulled her out of the car using pain compliance techniques and handcuffed her.  When a backup deputy arrived, he understood the truck to be a possible attempted suicide site, and searched it. The son survived. The district court denied the deputies qualified immunity against the plaintiff's excessive force and illegal search claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

The 9th Circuit held that a reasonable officer could have found that the deputy's use of force was reasonable, considering that the officer was acting in an emergency response rather than law enforcement capacity and the plaintiff's actions in preventing lawful attempts to render aid to her son threatened her son's life.  A reasonable officer could also have found the search of the truck reasonable, since it was in an emergency response rather than law enforcement capacity.  The deputies were therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

No Clearly-Established Eighth Amendment Right to Adequate Suicide Prevention Protocols for Inmates

In Taylor v. Barkes, published June 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, per curiam, a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that correctional officials and employees were not entitled to qualified immunity to a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging that the officials and employees violated a prisoner's 8th Amendment rights by not adequately screening him for risk of suicide, allegedly leading to the inmate's in-custody suicide.  The Supreme Court held that at the time of the suicide, 2004, there was no clearly-established right under the 8th Amendment to the proper implementation of adequate suicide prevention protocols.  No Supreme Court decision establishes such a right.  The weight of the authority at the time suggested that such a right did not exist.  The Third Circuit relied on two of its own decisions.  The Supreme Court determined that not even those decisions clearly established the right.  No precedent on the books would have made clear to the defendants that they were overseeing a system that violated the Constitution.  They were therefore entitled to qualified immunity.