John R. v. Oakland Unified School District

769 P.2d 948 (1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was a ninth-grade student at a junior high school in the D School District. His mathematics teacher, who had also taught P in the seventh grade, asked P to participate in the school's instructional, work-experience program, under which students received both school credit and monetary payments for assisting teachers by, for example, helping to correct other students' papers. The program was aimed mainly at high-performing students. P had a history of poor grades in mathematics, but his marks in this teacher's class reflected what his attorney, no doubt ironically, termed 'a remarkable increase in his ability to do math. Performance of the required work by students at teachers' homes was an option authorized by the district, and the teacher either encouraged or required P to come to his apartment for this purpose. The teacher attempted to convince P that engaging in sex acts with him would be a constructive part of their relationship and, at times, threatened to give P failing grades or to tell people that P had solicited sex from him. The teacher succeeded in pressuring P into sexual acts, including oral copulation and anal intercourse. P finally told his father about the sex 10 months later. P's mother reported the incident to the district that same month. P's brought suit against the teacher and the district (Ds), alleging that D was vicariously liable for the teacher's acts and directly liable for its negligence. D's demurrer to Ps' third amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. The case then proceeded to trial against the teacher on all causes of action and against D limited to those causes of action premised upon its direct liability for negligent hiring and supervision of the teacher. D's motion for nonsuit as to those remaining claims was granted on grounds unrelated to the merits and judgment was entered in D's favor on all causes of action against it. P appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed both the grant of nonsuit and the earlier order sustaining D's demurrer to those causes of action against it premised on a theory of vicarious liability. The appeals court stated that although sexual relations were not within or contemplated by the teacher’s official duties, those relations were made possible by his use, and abuse, of the official, job-created authority the teacher was given over P. This appeal resulted.