Diannah Dinsmoor v. City of Phoenix, 492 P.3d 313

Background

Matthew (male student) and Ana (female student) had an on‑again/off‑again dating relationship; Matthew had previously been physically violent with another student, Raven, and received disciplinary action.
On March 6 school staff (VP Kimberly Heinz and safety officer Kenneth Palmer) learned of texts and warnings suggesting Matthew might harm Raven; they reviewed messages, concluded they were vague, and implemented a safety plan only for Raven.
On March 7 (an early‑release day) Ana told staff she planned to meet Matthew after school; she told staff he did not personally threaten her. Palmer warned her it was “not a good idea” but took no further steps.
After school, at a private residence, Matthew shot and killed Ana and then killed himself.
Ana’s mother sued the Deer Valley Unified School District and school personnel for negligence; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, the court of appeals reversed as to the District, and the Arizona Supreme Court granted review and affirmed summary judgment for the District, holding no duty arose under the school‑student special relationship.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the school owed a duty under the school‑student special relationship to protect Ana from off‑campus harm occurring after dismissal	Dinsmoor: District learned of risk while Ana was under school custody and could/should have taken actions during school hours to prevent the later off‑campus harm	District: Duty exists only for risks arising while the school has custody/control; harm after safe release generally outside the special relationship	Court: Duty only covers risks arising within the scope of the relationship (while school has custody/control); no duty to Ana here because no known, tangible risk to her arose while under school control
Whether the school‑student duty is limited by time and geography (custody/control)	Dinsmoor: Duty extends beyond campus if the school learned of risk while student under its custody	District: Duty is coextensive with the school’s custody/control and is generally bounded by time/place	Court: Adopts a limited scope tied to custody/control; rejects a broad rule that duty extends whenever school merely learns of a risk unrelated to its control; disapproves Hill to the extent it suggested a broader duty
Whether foreseeability of harm determines existence of duty	Dinsmoor: Prior violence/arguing rendered harm foreseeable and supports recognizing a duty	District: Foreseeability is not the test for whether a duty exists	Court: Reiterates foreseeability is not a factor in determining duty; duty requires a known, tangible risk arising within the school‑student relationship

Key Cases Cited

Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 (2007) (duty is a legal question; caution against conflating duty with breach/causation)
Quiroz v. ALCOA Inc., 243 Ariz. 560 (2018) (distinguishing duty and foreseeability; duties arise from special relationships or public policy)
Monroe v. Basis Sch., Inc., 234 Ariz. 155 (App. 2014) (school duty is bounded by custody/control; no duty for student injured after leaving school custody)
Hill v. Safford Unified Sch. Dist., 191 Ariz. 110 (App. 1997) (court of appeals recognized precautions duty but Supreme Court disapproved its broader scope)
Jesik v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 125 Ariz. 543 (1980) (recognizing special‑relationship duty between school and students)
Boisson v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 236 Ariz. 619 (App. 2015) (special‑relationship duties apply only to risks within the relationship’s scope)
Nunez v. Prof'l Transit Mgmt. of Tucson, Inc., 229 Ariz. 117 (2012) (special relationship imposes duty to avoid risks from third parties)
Pratt v. Robinson, 349 N.E.2d 849 (N.Y. 1976) (school duty coextensive with physical custody and control)
Warrington v. Tempe Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 3, 187 Ariz. 249 (App. 1996) (school may owe duty in placing bus stops where off‑campus risks arise from school decisions)