RANDI W. V. MUROC JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
14 Cal.4th 1066 (1997)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Randi (P), a student, sought review of a decision which granted a
demurrer to Muroc (Ds), school districts and employees, on all causes of action in P's suit
for damages after being molested at school.
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.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment