Monroe v. Basis School, Inc.
318 P.3d 871
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- Monroe, an 11-year-old BASIS student, was injured Oct 17, 2003 while bicycling from BASIS to home at a busy intersection near the school.
- Intersection had marked crosswalks and traffic signals; no crossing guards were present.
- Monroe sued after turning 18, alleging BASIS negligently failed to post a crossing guard; BASIS moved for summary judgment on duty.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, holding BASIS owed no common law or statutory duty to Monroe.
- Court analyzes whether a school owes a duty to students traveling to/from school; duty is a threshold legal issue.
- Court ultimately agrees no duty exists because Monroe left BASIS custody and defendants took no affirmative action creating a duty; statutory framework and public policy do not impose such a duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a student-school relationship create a duty for travel to/from school? | Monroe relies on a special relationship to impose duty. | No duty arises once student leaves custody or outside school-sponsored activity. | No duty; outside custody, no duty owed. |
| Does proximity to a busy intersection create a duty to ensure student safety while traveling home? | Location near arterial road increases risk requiring crossing safeguards. | Proximity alone does not create duty absent custody/affirmative action. | No duty based on location alone; no custody or affirmative action by BASIS. |
| Do ADOT Guidelines create a statutory duty for BASIS to provide crossing guards? | Guidelines have force of law under § 15-183(E)(1). | Guidelines are not formal rules and have no legal force. | Guidelines do not create a statutory duty. |
| Does public policy support recognizing a duty of care for off-campus travel by students? | Public policy should protect students traveling away from school. | Legislature did not extend duty to off-campus travel; policy does not support it. | Public policy does not support recognizing such a duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 (Ariz. 2007) (duty is a threshold issue; existence of duty governs negligence liability)
- Hill v. Safford Unified Sch. Dist., 191 Ariz. 110 (Ariz. 1997) (special school-student relationship; duty bounded by school control)
- Alhambra Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court, 165 Ariz. 38 (Ariz. 1990) (creation of marked crosswalk imposes duty to users of crosswalk)
- Warrington v. Tempe Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 3, 187 Ariz. 249 (Ariz. 1996) (bus stop placement duties; immunity analysis not extending to off-campus travel here)
- Warrington v. Tempe Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 3,, 197 Ariz. 68 (Ariz. 1999) (bus stop duty; reaffirmed limitations on off-campus supervision)