C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District
138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1
| Cal. | 2012Background
- C.A., a minor, sues a guidance counselor and the District for sexual harassment injuries allegedly occurring in 2007.
- Plaintiff alleges supervisory and administrative District staff knew or should have known of Hubbell's propensities and failed to hire, train, or supervise her.
- District demurred; trial court dismissed negligent supervision and negligent hiring/retention claims against the District.
- Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting vicarious liability under § 815.2 and any direct liability theory for negligent hiring/supervision.
- The Supreme Court granted review to address whether the District may be vicariously liable for supervisorial/administrative negligence in hiring, supervising, and retaining staff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District can be vicariously liable under § 815.2 for negligently hiring/retaining/supervising staff who abuse a student | C.A. argues § 815.2 supports liability for negligent supervision and hiring. | District contends no direct or vicarious liability for negligent hiring/retention; scope limits apply. | Yes; District may be vicariously liable for supervisory/negligent hiring/retention. |
| Whether school personnel owe a duty to protect students from foreseeable harm by other school employees | Special relationship imposes a duty to act with reasonable care to prevent harm. | No heightened duty beyond ordinary care; no special relationship creating direct duty. | Yes; special relationship creates duty to take reasonable protective measures. |
| Whether supervisory/administrative liability requires identifying the specific employee in the pleading | Need not identify the exact employee at pleading stage for § 815.2 liability. | Plaintiff must name the negligent actor to establish the theory. | Not required at pleading; allegations of responsible supervisory/administrative conduct suffice. |
| Whether causation and Rowland factors limit the duty of supervisory personnel | Foreseeability and duty arise from special relationship; negligent hiring caused injury. | Causation and foreseeability limit liability for non-decisive recommendations. | Causation and Rowland factors apply; liability contingent on substantial factor and foreseeability. |
| Whether the holding risks improper incentives to hire or supervise staff or diverts district resources | Liability serves compensation and prevention of future harm. | Concerns about chilling hiring decisions and misallocation of funds. | Courts weigh remedial goals against policy concerns; liability permitted where duty and causation shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 2 Cal.3d 741 (1970) (imposes duty to supervise; district liable for negligent supervision)
- Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist., 19 Cal.4th 925 (1998) (special relationship; duty to protect students from foreseeable harm)
- Virginia G. v. ABC Unified School Dist., 15 Cal.App.4th 1848 (1993) (negligent hiring/supervision theory for district exposure to harm)
- John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist., 48 Cal.3d 438 (1989) (scope-of-employment and district liability for teacher misconduct)
- Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School Dist., 14 Cal.4th 1066 (1997) (Rowland factors; limits on misrepresentation and duty in school settings)