Vermont Supreme Court Rules in School Standard of Care Case
The Vermont Supreme Court issued an important opinion on school district and school employee liability in late July. The Court’s decision in Janice Edson v. Barre Supervisory Union #61 provides insight into the "standard of care" schools are expected to apply in situations involving student safety.
The case that the Court reviewed was a tragic one involving the murder of a student who had left school grounds during the school day. It was widely reported by the news media when it occurred in 2000. Because it is important to understand the factual basis for the Court’s decision, the Court’s summary of the facts appears in its entirety below.
DeAndra Florucci began her second year at Spaulding High School in the fall of 2000. She was fifteen years old and had a history of truancy and drug abuse. On the morning of October 25, she arrived at school with a note from her mother excusing her from class for an 11:30 doctor’s appointment. Her friend, a student from another school, was "shadowing" her at school that day.
While DeAndra and her friend were at the doctor’s appointment, Donald Baumgardner, a nonstudent, entered the high school looking for DeAndra. At the main office, he asked to see her and was told that he could leave a note for her. After filling out a student-message form, Baumgardner exited the building. Shortly thereafter, an assistant principal noticed Baumgardner entering through the vocational center entrance at the rear of the school. The assistant principal asked why he was still at the school, and Baumgardner answered that he was waiting to see if his note was delivered to DeAndra. The assistant principal told Baumgardner that he had to leave and escorted him toward the main exit. While the assistant principal was walking Baumgardner toward the exit, the bell rang, indicating a class change, and the halls filled with students. The influx of students diverted the assistant principal’s attention, leaving Baumgardner unaccompanied.
As Baumgardner was approaching the main exit, DeAndra and her friend returned to school from the doctor’s appointment. The three ran into one another in the school lobby and began to talk. The assistant principal approached the group and asked DeAndra if the conversation was friendly; she replied that it was. The assistant principal then instructed DeAndra and her friend to return to class and directed Baumgardner to leave the school. Upon realizing that DeAndra had returned from an early dismissal, the assistant principal also instructed her to check in with guidance office. DeAndra responded that she needed something from her locker and walked in that direction. Unbeknownst to the assistant principal, DeAndra failed to check in with the guidance office, and instead left school with her friend and Baumgardner through the rear exit.
As they walked away from the school, Baumgardner told DeAndra that an acquaintance of theirs, Dana Martin, wanted to speak with her at his house. She agreed to accompany Baumgardner there, and left her friend to wait on some steps as they headed toward Martin’s home. DeAndra did not return, however, and the police were eventually notified. DeAndra’s body was subsequently found under a bridge in Plainfield. Martin confessed to sexually assaulting and murdering DeAndra, acknowledging that he had conceived the crime sometime late the night before or early the same morning.
The lawsuit that followed was based on the assertion of DeAndra’s mother that Spaulding had been negligent in its supervision of DeAndra, and that its omissions led directly to DeAndra’s sexual assault and murder. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court finding that Spaulding did not owe a duty of supervision to DeAndra under the circumstances, and therefore was not answerable to DeAndra’s estate in a "wrongful death" action.
The reasoning of the Court is significant in that it both defines the standard of care applicable in this case and makes clear that, although Spaulding was not responsible in this case, it clearly might have been had the factual situation been different.
The key factor that absolved Spaulding from legal responsibility in this case was, according to the Supreme Court, that Vermont’s statutory standard of care for schools "requires schools to protect students only from foreseeable risks"(N)onetheless, where school administrators or teachers fail to exercise ordinary care in supervising students, they may be held liable to the extent their acts or omissions are the proximate cause of a student’s injury.
Discussing this conclusion further, the Court made clear that "there exist circumstances under which a school might be held liable for negligent supervision even where a student leaves school grounds voluntarily and without permission" In this case, the Court determined "Spaulding did not have the requisite knowledge or notice of DeAndra’s premeditated murder to bring it within the realm of the foreseeable." Citing Vermont’s "duty of care" statute that applies to schools, the Court held that "(I)n dealing with children, the duty of ordinary care must include consideration of (children’s) inability to protect themselves, and their childish indiscretions, instincts and impulses. Thus, a school district might be held liable where a six-year-old leaves school unattended, darts into the road and is severely injured, precisely because the reasonably prudent person would foresee that a child of such tender years lacks the discretion to stop and look both ways before crossing the road. Here, on the other hand, Spaulding was no more or less likely to anticipate, much less prevent, DeAndra’s brutal assault and murder because she was a fifteen year old with a history of truancy and drug abuse. Under the circumstances of this case, nothing short of continuous, immediate supervision would have prevented DeAndra from voluntarily leaving school and going to Martin’s home. Vermont schools are neither equipped nor expected to provide such constant supervision to students, even those with a troubled history."
In an important concurring opinion, the Court’s Chief Justice made clear that the actions of Spaulding in this case would not have absolved it from responsibility under different circumstances. "Our holding rests purely on the lack of foreseeability of (the harms that befell DeAndra) and this opinion in no way endorses Spaulding’s actions with respect to Baumgardner. That school officials took steps to facilitate contact between Baumgardner, a stranger to the school, and DeAndra, a young and troubled student, without inquiring into his identity, relationship to DeAndra, or purpose in making contact, seems a questionable practice at best. As a general matter, I have no doubt that the safety of students like DeAndra would be enhanced by a more probing visitor policy than the one carried out here. I also do not doubt that, under different facts, similar laxity in attendance or visitor policy might form the basis for school liability."
