Procedural Posture

Appellants, a mentally retarded student and associated individuals, appealed an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which sustained a demurrer without leave to amend class action allegations and the cause of action for breach of mandatory duty under Cal. Gov't Code § 815.6, in appellants' action against respondent school district for injuries that appellant student sustained from an abusive teacher.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. explains how to write a Formal Demand Letter

Overview

Appellants, a mentally retarded student and other associated individuals, brought suit under various causes of action against respondent school district for severe physical and psychological injuries that appellant student suffered by a teacher that abused him while attending school. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend to the class action allegations and to the cause of action for breach of mandatory duty under Cal. Gov't Code § 815.6. On appeal, the court affirmed. The court found that the mass-tort lawsuit had a wide disparity in individual claimants' damages and the diverse issues of liability and causation to each individual claimant precluded maintenance of the suit as a class action. The trial court properly disposed of the issue by demurrer. The court held that Cal. Const. art. I, § 28(c), which provided that students had a right to attend safe schools, had not provided an independent basis for a private right of action for damages and had not imposed an affirmative duty on respondent to guarantee the safety of the school. No statutory or constitutional provision created the kind of affirmative, mandatory duty to which § 815.6 had applied.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's order that sustained a demurrer without leave to amend the class action allegations and action for breach of mandatory duty, in an action against respondent school board by appellants, a mentally retarded student and associated individuals. The court held that no statutory or constitutional provisions had created an affirmative or mandatory duty owed by respondent to appellants under the applicable statute.