At the appellate court, LAUSD’s challenge was based purely on the legal question of immunity under Education Code Section 44808, rather than the factual basis for the verdict. As described in the decision, the case involved the death of a 6-year-old LAUSD student, Dayvon, who died as a result of blunt trauma from a physical beating by his babysitter, Tyler Martin-Brand. Martin-Brand worked for LAUSD as a part-time playground worker and supervisor for the Beyond the Bell after-school program. Kenya Taylor, Dayvon’s mother, did not know Martin-Brand but trusted him because he worked for LAUSD and hired him to babysit Dayvon during LAUSD’s winter break in 2019.
After Dayvon’s death, Taylor filed a lawsuit against LAUSD, and a jury found that LAUSD was negligent in hiring and supervising Martin-Brand. The jury assigned 90 percent of the fault to LAUSD and the other 10 percent to Taylor. LAUSD filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), which would allow the judge to overturn the jury’s decision, and another motion for a new trial based on immunity under Education Code Section 44808. Both motions were denied; however, on appeal, the appellate court disagreed and ordered the lower court to grant LAUSD’s JNOV motion and enter a judgment in LAUSD’s favor.
In reaching this decision, the court explained that under Government Code Section 815, public entities, such as local educational agencies, are not liable for injuries that arise out of an act or omission of that public entity. One exception to this is Government Code Section 815.2, under which an LEA may be held liable for an injury proximately caused by the LEA’s employee within the scope of the employee’s employment.
The court recognized case law that has held that this LEA liability can include liability for the LEA’s negligence in hiring, supervising and retaining an employee who harms a student, but maintained that such liability exists only when there is no applicable immunity. The court explained further that pursuant to Education Code Section 44808, a school district is immune from liability for the conduct or safety of a student when the student is not on school property and the district has not otherwise assumed responsibility for the student’s safety. So, a school district can be liable for the actions of its employees based on Government Code Section 815.2, but not if Education Code Section 44808 is satisfied.
While districts are generally liable for injuries that occur during events on a district campus and/or during school hours, under Section 44808, liability for an off-campus student injury may only be found when the district has undertaken supervision of the student or the student’s off-campus injury resulted from the district’s negligence while the student was on campus.
In the case of Dayvon’s death, the court found that Section 44808 was satisfied and therefore LAUSD was immune from liability. To reach this decision the court pointed out several key facts including that Dayvon died when away from school property and when school was not in session so any negligence by Martin-Brand did not occur on school premises. Additionally, his death did not occur when LAUSD was transporting him to or from school or while he was participating in a school-sponsored event. LAUSD did not know that Martin-Brand and Dayvon were interacting during the break and did not assume any responsibility for Dayvon’s safety.
Further, the plaintiff’s argument that LAUSD’s hiring and supervision of Martin-Brand was an on-campus activity that created liability, was not accepted by the court. The court held that such an “expansive approach […] would expose a school district to liability for any employee’s off-campus tort” and “this interpretation would run afoul of Section 44808’s express purpose of limiting school district liability for harm that occurs to students when they are not on school property or engaged in school-sponsored or school-supervised activities.” As summarized by the court, “Dayvon’s death did not arise from a negligent act directly concerning him while on school premises, which carried into off-campus harm.”
This case, while tragic in its facts, is a good reminder of the responsibility districts have for student safety at school events, as well as the protection Education Code Section 44808 provides for districts in relation to off-campus events or activities beyond their authority or for which they have no responsibility.