N.L. v. Bethel School District, 378 P.3d 162

N.L., a 14-year-old Bethel Junior High track athlete, met 18-year-old Nicholas Clark (a Bethel High student and registered sex offender) during shared track practice; Clark concealed his status and misrepresented his age.
Clark and N.L. exchanged texts, skipped practice the next day, left campus together, and Clark subsequently took N.L. to his home and raped her.
Pierce County sheriff notified Bethel High School’s principal in 2004 that Clark was a registered sex offender; the record indicates the principal did not inform coaches/staff or create a safety plan, possibly violating district policy requiring notification of relevant personnel.
N.L. sued Bethel School District for negligence (failure to take reasonable precautions after notification); the district moved for summary judgment arguing no duty once N.L. left campus and that her leaving was an intervening, superseding act.
The trial court granted summary judgment; the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding duty and proximate cause were questions for the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of duty	District had duty to protect students from foreseeable harms arising from known sex offender on campus	Duty ends when student leaves school custody; no duty for off-campus injury	District owed duty to use reasonable care to protect students from foreseeable harms; whether breach fell within duty is for jury
Scope of duty vis-à-vis custody	Duty can arise from on-campus negligence even if injury later occurs off campus	Duty limited to custodial context; school’s responsibility ends when custody ends	Location of injury not dispositive; relevant inquiry is where negligence occurred; duty may extend beyond time of injury if breach occurred in custody
Foreseeability of criminal/intervening acts	Sexual assault by a known sex offender and younger students leaving with older ones were foreseeable	Criminal act and student’s voluntary departure made harm unforeseeable and too extraordinary	Foreseeability is normally a jury question; student-on-student sexual assault and leaving campus together are not unforeseeable as a matter of law
Proximate cause (legal and cause-in-fact)	District’s failure to notify/act was a factual and legal cause of the rape (could have prevented contact/supervision)	N.L.’s voluntary choice to leave was an intervening superseding cause breaking the causal chain	Both cause-in-fact and legal-cause issues present genuine factual disputes; not appropriate for summary judgment; jury determination required

McLeod v. Grant County Sch. Dist. No. 128, 42 Wn.2d 316 (1953) (school duty to protect pupils in custody from foreseeable dangers; failure to supervise led to on-campus rape claim)
Coates v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10, 55 Wn.2d 392 (1960) (declining liability where injury was remote in time/place from school activity; custodial context emphasized)
Christensen v. Royal Sch. Dist. No. 160, 156 Wn.2d 62 (2005) (school districts have an enhanced duty of reasonable care to students)
Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist., 22 Cal.3d 508 (1978) (off-campus injury does not automatically bar school liability where breach occurred on campus)
Eisel v. Bd. of Educ., 324 Md. 376 (1991) (school may owe duty regarding off-campus suicide where school had knowledge making harm foreseeable)
Stoddart v. Pocatello Sch. Dist. #25, 149 Idaho 679 (2010) (recognizing duty may exist despite off-campus injury but limiting extension of duty to avoid requiring schools to prevent all off-campus criminal acts)