RIVERSIDE, Calif. (Legal Newsline) - A California school district and the estate of a teacher who was shot and killed by her estranged husband aren’t liable for the incident in which a student was also murdered, an appeals court ruled, finding no evidence the district created a “dangerous condition” by failing to bar visitors from the school or install locks on doors.
On April 10, 2017, Cedric Anderson signed in with the receptionist at the elementary school where his wife, Karen Smith, was a teacher. He went to her classroom, shot Smith and a student and then killed himself.
Lawyers for the slain child and other students sued Smith’s estate and the school district, accusing the dead teacher of negligence and the school district of failing to prevent Anderson from entering her classroom. The plaintiffs presented evidence Smith had told her daughter that Anderson had previously said “he was going to throw [Smith] out of the second story of their house and also chop her up into pieces.” There was also an unconfirmed police report Anderson had chained a bicycle to Smith’s car door. But the daughter also said her mother wasn’t afraid of her husband, had never shown signs of abuse, and only wanted him out of the house because it belonged to her.
The court dismissed the claim against Smith’s estate, finding Anderson’s crime wasn’t foreseeable and she had no duty to disclose her personal marital struggles to the district. The court also dismissed claims against the school district, ruling the plaintiffs hadn’t provided any evidence the district had done something that created a foreseeable risk of a shooting.
“While defendants may have generally had a duty to protect the students of North Park, it cannot be found that defendants breached any such duty because it cannot be found that defendants were aware of any foreseeable threat to their safety,” the trial court concluded.
California’s Fourth Appellate District, Division 2, in an opinion published Sept. 6, upheld the dismissals. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued “adequate safeguards” would have prevented Anderson from committing murder. The receptionist should have called Smith before allowing her husband into the building, they argued, and the classroom door should have been locked. They also said the school district should be assigned “moral blame” because tighter regulations would pose a minimal burden and the district had insurance to cover liability.
The appeals court rejected those arguments, saying the plaintiffs’ theory meant schools would be “compelled to undertake onerous and costly measures—such as inspecting every person who comes on campus for weapons and other safety hazards, vetting all visitors, teachers, and students, and monitoring their daily activities and the condition of classrooms at least during school hours.”
Even if the front door had been locked, the court went on, “the receptionist would have unlocked it and permitted Anderson to proceed to Smith’s classroom. Even if Smith’s classroom had a door, and that door was locked, there is no evidence that she would have refused to open the door to him.”
“Plaintiffs presented no evidence that any district employee—including Smith herself—could have foreseen that Anderson was a danger to the safety of the school,” the court concluded.
The plaintiffs argued that given the prevalence of school shootings, reasonable officials “would take account of it in guiding conduct.”
“We disagree,” the court said. “This case presented nothing more than a `mere possibility of occurrence.’”
In a footnote, the appeals court also questioned plaintiff claims school shootings are common, citing several studies to conclude they “are not the norm; rather, they are rare.”