When Are Schools Liable for Student Safety in Extracurricular Activities? The Use of 15-Passenger Vans Revisited
Thomas J. Cathey, EdD, Director for Legal/Legislative Issues, ACSI
Belen Campos was a high school student in Washington state. The local school district recommended an Upward Bound program and gave Upward Bound the names of students eligible to participate, giving students excused absences to participate in program activities.
One December day, the school district allowed Campos and eight other students to visit a local college with the Upward Bound program. They were traveling in a 15-passenger van when they encountered black ice. The driver lost control, and the van rolled over. Campos and another 15-year-old student sustained fatal injuries.
Mr. and Mrs. Campos filed suit in U.S. district court, alleging that the school district was negligent for failing to supervise its students, in releasing them to travel in the van, and for failing to warn either the student or her parents of the dangers of riding in that type of vehicle. Was the school district liable for negligent supervision and failure to warn?
The federally funded Upward Bound program is organized and administered by Columbia Basin College (CBC). It targets high school students who generally would be the first students in their family to attend college or students from economically disadvantaged families. CBC employees visit high schools and recruit students into the program.
The school district encouraged and recommended students for the Upward Bound program and excused students to participate. The district allowed the program to use school facilities “free of charge.” The principal even referred to a district “partnership” with the Upward Bound program. Was this enough to conclude the district negligently supervised students and failed to warn students and families of the dangers of 15-passenger vans?
While the parents claimed that the district was responsible for their daughter’s death, the district asserted that even if 15-passenger vans presented known dangers, it was not legally obligated to supervise the students because they were not in the district’s custody or control at the time of the accident.
This case contains a good analysis of schools’ liability for off-campus trips. The court stated that when a parent places the child in the school, the school acts “in loco parentis” (in place of the parent), and must exercise the same care a parent would in the supervision and protection of the student.
This duty would extend to activities and events off the school campus but “under the control of the school and within its scope of authority.” This duty to supervise and protect students is based on the assumption that the school district, not the parent, has direct control of the student while he or she is at school. The law imposes a duty of reasonable care on the district to take certain precautions to protect the pupils in its custody from dangers “reasonably to be anticipated.”
Responsibility of a school district to supervise students is not limited to school hours, school property, or curricular activities, but also extends to school-sponsored extracurricular activities under the school’s authority and control. However, the court agreed with the district that “it stands to reason that when the student is not in the district’s custody and control, then the district does not stand in the shoes of the parent and does not have the power to control the conduct of the student.”
The court did concede that the school district had approved the student’s absence from school to attend the field trip, but concluded there was no evidence it had control over the Upward Bound program in general, the field trip, or the mode of transportation and could not be liable for the victim’s death on the basis of negligent supervision. It granted the request to dismiss this claim.
The parents also claimed the school district was negligent for failing to warn students and parents of the dangers of traveling in a 15-passenger van. The court did conclude the parents provided sufficient evidence supporting their claim that 15-passenger vans have known safety problems. However, the court ruled the school district had no legal duty to warn the student or her parents of the dangers of these vans since the student was not in the district’s custody when she participated in the field trip.
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration has issued various advisories questioning the safety of 15-passenger vans. From 1997 to 2006, 1,090 deaths occurred from crashes involving these vehicles. Last September, two passengers were killed when a 15-passenger van filled with cheerleaders and coaches from an Arizona high school rolled over.
Schools should be familiar with the risks these vehicles pose. Yet, every day, you can drive down the street and see one of these vans with a school logo on its side. Since 1993, ACSI and many other groups have warned about the dangers associated with 15-passenger vans. ACSI recommends that schools not use them to transport students.
Reference
Campos v. Prosser School District, 2008 WL 4587298 (E.D. Wash.)
CSE 13.3 Legal Report: Extracurricular Activities