SAN FRANCISCO - A state appeals panel has ruled a school district cannot be sued for failing to prevent an 11-year-old student's off-campus death by suicide, but it will let the child’s family continue its allegations the district is liable for not stopping the bullying that allegedly preceded her death.
Vionalyn and Renato Caguin, who are divorced, sued Vallejo City Unified School district after their daughter died while at her father’s house during winter break in 2023. Their Solano County lawsuit premised liability on allegations of negligent hiring and training and failure to fulfill a duty to supervise students, including failure to protect from bullying, an unreasonable response to expressions of suicidal ideation and failure to properly inform the parents of the circumstances.
Solano County Superior Court Judge Stephen Gizzi denied the district’s attempt to end the litigation on grounds of state law immunity, funding factual dispute over the exercise of reasonable care and whether there was any actionable injury suffered on campus stemming from negligence to support the family’s survival claim.
The district asked the California First District Appellate Court to intervene, arguing Judge Gizzi’s take on the 1978 California Supreme Court opinion in a school district immunity case, Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District, used “linguistic ambiguity” in state law to interpret the immunity issue.
Justice Jason Clay wrote the opinion; Justices Tracie Brown and Jeremy Goldman concurred. Clay, an Alameda County Superior Court judge, was assigned to the panel for this matter. The panel filed the opinion Dec. 30 but it was not certified for publication until Jan. 27.
Clay said the Caguins’ complaint included four causes of action. Three were premised on the harm allegedly suffered due to their daughter’s death. The fourth relied on allegations of harm for “pre-death pain and suffering.”
In seeking summary judgment, “the district relied heavily on LeRoy v. Yarboi,” a 2021 California Fifth District Appellate Court ruling that also involved a student whose suicide was attributed to bullying at school and a district found to be immune from litigation. The Caguins argued their claims were different because their primary liability theory involved negligence on campus, including several details about communications with the student and her family along with various staff members’ attempts to manage the situation, including one who reached out to the family outside of school hours.
In his decision, Solano County Judge Gizzi, relying on Hoyem, wrote “the undisputed facts show (the student) repeatedly expressed suicidal ideation to (the district) and indicated that she had engaged in self-harm there are triable issues of material fact regarding whether (the district) failed to exercise reasonable care in the circumstances" that would allow the school district to claim immunity.
Clay explained that in Hoyem, a student left school grounds during school hours without permission and was hit by a car. He said courts have long struggled with that opinion’s invocation of a district’s expectation to provide “reasonable care” to its students but agreed the ruling is consistent with the state immunity law in that such protection is withdrawn “only when the student is or should be under the school’s direct supervision.”
Even if the district breached a duty of care owed to the student or her parents, Clay explained, state law — and the LeRoy opinion — renders it immune from liability for something that happened off site outside school hours.
“The Caguins cite no authority for the proposition that ‘voluntarily and affirmatively engag(ing) with a vulnerable student’ or communicating with a student by email outside of school hours qualifies as ‘specifically assum(ing) … responsibility or liability’ for the student’s well-being. But even if off-hours emails did constitute a specific undertaking of responsibility by a teacher, the Caguins do not account for the express language” in the immunity statute regarding when a district employee is immediately and directly supervising students.
However, the panel did agree the family could continue their claims, as the child’s “successor in interest” of injuries, pain and suffering based on allegations she was “repeatedly harassed, bullied, teased, made fun of and intimidated by students at (school) since September 2022.”
Survival laws don’t create their own right to sue, Clay explained, but allow certain claims to proceed through a decedent’s representative. He further said the district conceded the family was able to pursue their allegations and noted the panel agreed the record shows “sufficient evidence that the alleged harm — ‘by students at (school)’ — occurred on-campus when (the child) and the students were supposed to be under the school district’s direct supervision.”
However, the panel said it would not make rulings regarding what evidence the family could present at a trial to prove their allegations. It ordered Judge Gizzi to vacate the summary judgment order, then to grant summary judgment in favor of the district on only three causes of action. All parties will bear their own legal costs related to the appellate ruling.
The school district is represented by Horvitz and Levy and Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith.
The Caguins are represented by Gavrilov & Brooks.
