PHOENIX (Legal Newsline) - An Arizona school district and its employees aren’t liable for a tragic incident in which a student shot his girlfriend and killed himself at a friend’s house after school, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled. The court declined to establish a “bright-line” rule stating when schools no longer have a duty to protect students, but said that generally the duty ends once students leave campus or school-sponsored events.
In its Aug. 6 opinion, the state’s high court reversed an appellate decision finding the Deer Valley Unified School District, two school officials and an off-duty police officer had a duty to protect Anastasia “Ana” Greer, who was shot by her boyfriend Matthew Bolton in a North Phoenix home in 2014. The appellate court earlier had upheld dismissal of the City of Phoenix from the suit.
The shooting occurred after Ana had warned school officials that Matthew had a gun and wanted to hurt another girl he had dated. Ana said Matthew was “crazy” but that she didn’t feel personally threatened by him.
School Principal Kimberly Heinz put together a protective plan with input from Kenneth Palmer, an off-duty Phoenix policeman serving as school safety officer. They informed the second girl’s mother of the threat, had a security monitor walk her to the bus and someone to verify she was picked up after school.
“Believing the only potential threat was aimed at Raven, Heinz did not implement a safety plan for Ana,” the Arizona Supreme Court said, in the decision by vice Chief Justice Ann Timmer.
On March 7, 2014 Matthew didn’t attend school. Ana told Heinz and Palmer she was going to meet him after school. Heinz told her to “make good choices” and Palmer warned her it “was not a good idea.” Ana went to a friend’s house, where Matthew shot and killed her and then killed himself.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the Deer Valley School District, the City of Phoenix and other defendants, finding they didn’t owe a duty to protect Ana under the circumstances. An appeals court upheld the summary judgment for Phoenix but reversed for the remaining defendants.
The Arizona Supreme Court reversed again, reinstating the summary judgment for all defendants. The court opened by noting that “people do not generally have a duty to protect others from harm,” but that schools and other institutions might have a “special relationship” imposing greater duties upon them.
The plaintiffs argued there are no time or place limits on the school’s duty to protect its students, while the defendants said the duty is limited to school hours and off-campus, school-sponsored activities. The Arizona Supreme Court said the answer lies somewhere in between. A charter school was ruled not to have a duty to protect an 11-year-old who was hit by a truck riding her bicycle home, for example, because the student was no longer in the school’s custody.
“Once students safely leave the school’s control, the special relationship ends, and students are simultaneously released to their parents’ or guardians’ full custodial care,” the court said. “At that point, the school is relieved of any duty to affirmatively protect students from any hazards they encounter.”
This isn’t a bright-line rule, the court said. One school was held liable for the injuries of a child hit by a car walking from a bus stop on a crowded street, because the school decided where to place the stop. And a school might be liable if it released children from the building when an active shooter was known to be in the area, the court noted.
The key consideration is whether a known and tangible risk of harm arose that endangered the student while under the school’s custody and control,” the court concluded. “Because no evidence suggests Matthew posed a threat to Ana before she left school to meet him on March 7, a known and tangible risk of harm did not arise within the scope of the school-student relationship.”