Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School District

14 Cal.4th 1066 (1997)

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 13-year-old student that was sexually assaulted by Robert Gadams, a vice principal. Former employers of Gadams had placed affirmative references in the reference letters and placement files of Gadams despite knowing of prior charges and complaints against Gadams for sexual misconduct that had been leveled against Gadams in all four prior positions in four different districts. P's school district relied on these reference letters and hired Gadams and P was assaulted. P sued for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and negligence per se. Ds demurred, arguing that each cause of action failed as a matter of law because the facts alleged failed to establish Ds owed any duty to P. The court entered judgment of dismissal with prejudice in favor of Ds, and this appeal followed. The Appeals court reversed as to the negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and negligence per se counts. Ps complaint adequately stated a cause of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The majority relied primarily on sections 310 and 311 of the Restatement Second of Torts, imposing liability on one who intentionally or negligently gives false information to another person that results in physical injury to the recipient or a third person. The majority believed that defendants' letters contained misleading representations or 'half-truths' regarding Gadams's qualifications. The Court of Appeal dissent concluded that because the letters contained no statements regarding Gadams's sexual contacts with students, but referred only to 'positive' aspects of his character and qualifications, the letters contained no actionable misrepresentations. The Court of Appeal majority also ruled that the complaint stated a cause of action for negligence per se, because defendants allegedly breached their statutory duty under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (Pen. Code, § 11164 et seq.) (the Reporting Act) to report to the authorities the various charges of sexual misconduct involving Gadams. The majority concluded the complaint adequately alleged that Ds' knowledge or suspicion that Gadams had committed sexual abuse invoked the provisions of the Reporting Act. The Court of Appeal dissent disagreed, concluding that defendants had no duty under the Reporting Act to report gossip or hearsay regarding a school officer's improper conduct. This case was heard by the California Supreme Court.