Young v. Blytheville School District, 425 S.W.3d 865

BY, a school student, was raped by a minor male in a school bathroom after boarding a Blytheville bus.
David Glover sues Blytheville School District and bus driver Erick Smith for negligence under the Arkansas Public Education Act, the Arkansas Constitution, and for gross negligence.
Defendants move to dismiss claiming immunity under Ark. Code Ann. § 21-9-301 and lack of a private right of action under the Act; also deny duty to provide safe transportation.
Appellant adds 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX claims alleging failure to protect BY from harassment and due process deprivation.
Circuit court dismisses; court holds Act provides no private right of action and immunity applies; constitutional right not abrogated; no duty to provide transportation; federal claims fail.
On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeal reviews de novo immunity and statutory construction questions, accepting well-pled facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Arkansas Public Education Act create a private right of action?	Glover argues Act imposes a duty and private remedy for safety failures.	Blytheville argues no private action or damages under the Act.	Act provides no private right of action.
Does Ark. Code Ann. § 21-9-301 violate Art. II, § 13 by immunizing the district?	Act should not nullify constitutional rights to remedy; immunity offends due process.	Immunity is longstanding and constitutional; no abrogation.	Immunity does not violate Art. II, § 13.
Did the defendants owe a legal duty to provide safe transportation or safety in general?	District failed to ensure BY’s safety and safe transportation.	No recognized legal duty to provide such safety; immunity applies.	No duty established; immunity stands.
Do 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX claims survive?	Authorities failed to protect BY and discriminated based on sex; rights were violated.	No cognizable federal rights or notice/deliberate indifference shown; claims fail.	Claims fail; no § 1983 or Title IX violation.

White v. City of Newport, 326 Ark. 667, 933 S.W.2d 800 (1996) (Immunity does not violate Art. II, § 13)
Doe v. Baum, 309 Ark. 401, 833 S.W.2d 760 (1992) (limits of immunity doctrine (torts vs. protections))
Brown v. Fountain Hill School Dist., 67 Ark. App. 358, 1 S.W.3d 27 (1999) (rejected gross negligence approach to defeat immunity)
Hobbs Farm Equipment v. CNH Am., LLC, 375 Ark. 379, 291 S.W.3d 190 (2009) (statutory interpretation and implied repeal considerations)
Repking v. Lokey, 2010 Ark. 356, 377 S.W.3d 211 (2010) (state-created danger and Monell-like framework)
Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 118 S. Ct. 1989 (1989) (deliberate indifference standard for Title IX damages)
Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 119 S. Ct. 1661 (1999) (damages liability under Title IX requires deliberate indifference)
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S. Ct. 662 (1986) (due process not implicated by negligent government action)
Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978) (local government liability based on custom or policy)
Rudd v. Pulaski County Special School Dist., 341 Ark. 794, 20 S.W.3d 310 (2000) (state-created danger framework in schooling context)
Watkins v. Arkansas Elder Outreach of Little Rock, Inc., 2012 Ark. App. 301, 420 S.W.3d 477 (2012) (negligence pleading standards guidance)