C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that school 17 can be vicariously liable where administrators and employees knew or should have known of 18 guidance counselor’s dangerous propensities, but nevertheless hired, retained and failed to 19 properly supervise her, leading to her sexually abusing a student
• duty applies not only to school 1 instructional personnel, but also superintendent and other administrative personnel who oversee 2 the overall functioning of the school
• plaintiff stated a claim for vicarious liability of a district under Section 815.2 where the employees were alleged to have violated their duty of care to plaintiff
• “A school district and its employees have a special relationship with the district’s pupils” in part due to “the comprehensive control over students exercised by school personnel.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Absent such a special relationship, there can be no individual liability to third 12 parties for negligent hiring, retention or supervision of a fellow employee, and hence no 13 vicarious liability under section 815.2”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).