Reported / Citable
Background
M.T. sued the Pajaro Valley Unified School District, alleging a district teacher sexually abused him at her home during summer break in 1997, when he was a teenager. M.T. was not the teacher’s pupil and did not attend her elementary school; he met her through a friend who had been her student.
The encounters had no school-related purpose. M.T. asserted negligence theories and breach of mandatory duty. The superior court granted the District summary judgment, finding no duty and immunity under Education Code section 44808.
The court reviewed summary judgment independently, construing the evidence in M.T.’s favor while asking whether any triable factual dispute could establish duty. It rejected the contention that living near the school, having a sibling there, or sometimes spending time on campus supplied the dependence and control required for a special relationship. It also declined to consider a different theory—based on a supposed District relationship with the teacher—that had not been presented in the summary-judgment briefing or hearing.
The immunity analysis provided a separate basis for judgment. Section 44808 generally disclaims district responsibility when a pupil is off school property, subject to specified exceptions. The record did not place the encounters within any exception. The court therefore affirmed the entire summary-judgment order and awarded the District its appellate costs. This was a legal ruling on the District’s responsibility, not a factual finding about whether the abuse occurred. The opinion was filed October 16, 2026, and certified for publication on November 2, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. No special relationship existed between M.T. and the District because the circumstances lacked mandatory attendance, school supervision, or comprehensive control: M.T. never attended the teacher’s school, met her outside school, and went to her home during summer.
Independently, Education Code section 44808 immunized the District because the injury occurred off school property and the District did not provide transportation, sponsor an off-campus activity, or specifically assume responsibility. The court distinguished cases involving students who left campus while under school supervision. It also held that M.T. forfeited alternative theories not preserved in the summary-judgment proceedings or opening brief.
Key Takeaways
- A district’s special relationship with students depends on the school’s custodial control, not merely district enrollment or the wrongdoer’s employment.
- Section 44808 immunity applied because the off-campus summer encounters were not transportation, a school-sponsored activity, or an undertaking by the District.
- A teacher’s claim that the boys would do yard work at her home did not turn the visit into a school activity.
- Summary-judgment theories must be preserved in the trial court and developed in the opening appellate brief.
Why It Matters
The published decision defines the boundary of California public-school liability for a teacher’s off-campus misconduct. The ruling does not excuse or minimize the alleged abuse; it addresses whether the District had a legal duty to protect this plaintiff in circumstances disconnected from school custody or activity.
For schools and plaintiffs, the facts connecting an encounter to school supervision, transportation, sponsorship, or an express undertaking will be central. The decision also illustrates that an independent statutory immunity ground can sustain summary judgment even when a plaintiff advances broader negligence theories.