In last week’s article I discussed a case in which the New Jersey Supreme Court held that, in appropriate circumstances, the duty of supervision owed by schools to their pupils extended to incidents that occurred off campus.
Today I wish to consider another North American case. I refer to the case of D. C. vs St Landry Parish School Board (2001), a decision of the Court of Appeal of Louisiana Third Circuit.
In that case, a 12 year-old schoolgirl who was in her first year at East Junior High School in Opelousas, Louisiana, was requested to “sign out” of school by the office secretary after she was informed by the deputy principal of the school that her skirt was too short and violated the school’s dress code.
The vice-principal had instructed the student to go to the office and call someone to bring her some acceptable clothes. She telephoned home and spoke to her then 18 year-old brother who told her that he did not have transportation to the school and therefore, could not bring any clothing for her.
It was after this telephone call that the secretary told her that she would have to go home and obtain appropriate clothing.
She left school after 7:59 am. and as she walked along the street towards her home she was sexually molested by a man. The incident occurred about eight blocks away from the school.
The plaintiff, on behalf of the child, brought an action against the man, the school board, the principal and deputy principal of the school and the office secretary.
The trial court concluded that all defendants were liable and awarded damages. The court held that the school board’s duty of reasonable supervision extended to an act of indecent behaviour with a juvenile which occurred approximately eight blocks away from the campus. It also held that the actions of the school board resulted in a breach of the duty of reasonable supervision.
The school policy had required that an administrator should obtain direct contact with a parent before signing a student out of school. This was not done in this case.
The court held that the duty of reasonable supervision is generally always present when a child is at school during school hours. Also included within that duty of reasonable supervision is a duty to make the appropriate supervisory decision concerning a student’s departure from school during regular school hours. The defendant had a policy in place and breached their duty to K.C. (the child) by violating their own policy.
It was established that K.C. was required to walk through an area of Opelousas described as the “Hill” which was known for illicit drug and other activity. The court concluded that there was a foreseeable risk that a 12 year-old female who walked through the area “may fall victim to one of the nefarious criminals that often frequented such an area at a time when those streets are normally clear of junior high school students.”
This case again illustrates the potential for liability where appropriate dismissal policies are not devised and followed. Although the case is from another jurisdiction, the principles, derived essentially from the common law of negligence, are in my view substantially the same as those which our courts are likely to apply if confronted with similar facts.
• Cecil McCarthy is a Queen’s Counsel.