Rogers v. Christina School District
73 A.3d 1
Del.2013Background
- Sixteen-year-old Ellerbe expressed suicidal intent to a school counselor and admitted a prior suicide attempt; counselor concluded he was not suicidal and returned him to class.
- The counselor did not notify Ellerbe’s parent/guardian, despite crisis-notification regulations; Ellerbe died by hanging after returning home.
- Plaintiffs sued the school district and officials for wrongful death and survival under Delaware law, arguing common-law duties or negligence per se based on regulatory violations.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment, finding no duty and no wrongful act; plaintiffs appeal asserting a special relationship and negligence per se claims.
- Court ultimately reverses with respect to negligence per se, remanding for proceedings on that theory; otherwise, it affirms no general duty under common law.
- Regulatory framework mandates immediate parent notification and crisis-management protocols, and the regulations have the force of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the school owe a duty to a student based on a special relationship? | Rogers argues in loco parentis creates a duty to protect Ellerbe. | School asserts no special relationship or duty beyond ordinary negligence. | No general duty found; no in loco parentis duty. |
| Did the school assume a duty of care by undertakings under Restatement §323? | School undertakings increased risk or induced reliance, creating a duty. | §323 does not apply off school grounds and no factual basis to impose duty. | §323 does not apply; no assumed duty. |
| Can violations of DOE/ Christina Protocol regulations support negligence per se? | Regulatory violations to notify parent/guardian trigger negligence per se. | Regulations may not have penalties or be sufficiently specific. | Yes; violations support negligence per se; remand for further proceedings. |
| Does a special relationship or §315 duty exist to require protection from off-campus self-harm? | Special relation could create duty to supervise or warn guardians. | No special relation; duty not triggered off school grounds. | No special relationship; no duty under §315. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jardel Co., Inc. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518 (Del. 1987) (assumed security duty analyzed under §323)
- Furek v. Univ. of Delaware, 594 A.2d 506 (Del. 1991) (university duty to regulate foreseeable dangerous activities on property)
- Marshall v. Univ. of Delaware, 633 A.2d 370 (Del. 1993) (discussion of university duty under Furek)
- Jain v. State, 617 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa 2000) ( Restatement §323 analysis analogous to lack of duty)
- Sammons v. Ridgeway, 293 A.2d 547 (Del. 1972) (negligence per se when Board of Education regulations set safety standards)
- Joseph v. Monroe, 419 A.2d 927 (Del. 1980) (statutory/regulatory specificity and per se analysis in bus-safety context)
- Eisel v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery Cnty., 324 Md. 376, 597 A.2d 447 (Md. 1991) (school counselors may owe duty to intervene when suicide risk is known)
- State v. Baccino, 282 A.2d 869 (Del. Super. 1971) (in loco parentis doctrine limited to certain supervisory contexts)
- Riedel v. ICI Americas Inc., 968 A.2d 17 (Del. 2009) ( Restatement authority cited in duty analysis)