#Kami lausd free#
There are 200-300 children on the playground participating in this free after school program and only two adults providing supervision.
The after school program plaintiff attended, which is held on the school’s playground, does not require payment, but it has far less supervision for the children who attend it than the other program. She also began attending one of the school’s two after school programs, one of which requires payment for enrollment. Named as defendants in this case are the school district, the elementary school where plaintiff was assaulted (the school), the principal of the school, Susan Babit (the principal), Susan Lasken the assistant principal (the assistant principal), and Casey Bednash, an after school playground supervisor (the playground supervisor, and collectively with those defendants, the defendants).Īccording to the complaint, in March 2005 plaintiff began attending the school as a second grade student. However, our review of the relevant case law, statutes, and regulations, as well as the facts of this case as set out in the parties’ summary judgment/adjudication evidence, convinces us that the summary judgment must be reversed because defendants did owe a duty of care to plaintiff, and the questions whether defendants were negligent in running the after school program, and if so, whether such negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, must be left to the trier of fact.
#Kami lausd trial#
The trial court ruled that whereas school districts have an affirmative duty of care to students because of the compulsory nature of education, generally there is no duty of care with respect to children who participate in voluntary after school programs. The persons inflicting the harm on plaintiff were also students who attended the program. The case concerns physical and sexual assault and battery that plaintiff sustained at one of the school district’s grade school campuses during a voluntary after school program. Plaintiff also dismissed all of the causes of action she asserted against the other defendants in the case. The judgment was entered after the trial court granted summary adjudication against plaintiff on three of the four causes of action she alleged against the school district and the employees and plaintiff dismissed the remaining cause of action against them. Plaintiff and appellant J.H., a minor child (plaintiff), by and through her mother and guardian ad litem, Kami Shade Agbeti (Mother), appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the Los Angeles Unified School District (the school district), and three of its employees. Kornberg for Plaintiff and Appellant.Ĭarlson & Messer, Jeffery J.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,ĪPPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael R. KAMI SHADE AGBETI, as guardian ad litem for J.H., a minor,
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
0 kommentar(er)
