In C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 861, C.A., a minor high school student, sued the school district and others for negligent hiring, supervision and retention after he was sexually abused by his guidance counselor. After the trial court dismissed the complaint, stating that there was no authority to hold a public entity liable for such negligence, the student appealed and the matter was ultimately heard by the California Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a school district could be held vicariously liable for negligent hiring, et al. with regard to a school employee who previously committed sexual misconduct. In doing so, the Supreme Court explained that the existence of a “special relationship” under California law between school employees and students creates a higher duty of care.
Public entity tort liability in California is entirely statutory under Government Code Section 815 and its related provisions. In making its ruling, the Supreme Court explained how a public entity may be considered vicariously liable under the Government Code for negligence by its administrators and supervisors in hiring, supervising, and/or retaining employees.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the liability of a public entity “must be based on evidence of negligent hiring, supervision or retention, not on assumptions or speculation.” A claim that an employee has committed sexual misconduct “does not of itself establish, or raise any presumption, that the employing [entity] should bear liability for the resulting injuries.” Even when negligence by a supervisor is established, “the greater share of fault will ordinarily lie with the individual who intentionally abused or harassed the [victim] than with any other party…” However, without a “special relationship” like the ones between school employees and students, individual administrators and supervisors for a public entity could not be held liable for negligent hiring, retention or supervision of a fellow employee, and thus there would be no vicarious liability for their public entity employers based on those employees’ actions.
It can be argued that the Supreme Court’s specific ruling here is narrowly applicable to cases involving school district employees and students. However, both public and private entities should be diligent in both (a) confirming the background and reference information of potential employees and (b) investigating any reports or complaints of inappropriate conduct of current employees.
