Christensen v. Royal School District No. 160
124 P.3d 283 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
As a matter of law, a child under the age of 16 cannot be assessed contributory fault for participating in a sexual relationship with a teacher in a negligence action against the school district because the child lacks the legal capacity to consent and is under no duty to protect herself from such abuse.
Facts:
- In early 2001, Leslie Christensen was a 13-year-old eighth-grade student at Royal Middle School.
- The Royal School District employed 26-year-old Steven Diaz as a teacher at the school.
- On four separate occasions in February and March 2001, Diaz engaged in sexual activity with Christensen in his classroom.
- According to Diaz, Christensen voluntarily participated in the relationship and the sexual activity.
Procedural Posture:
- Leslie Christensen and her parents sued teacher Steven Diaz, the Royal School District, and Principal Preston Andersen in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
- The complaint alleged Diaz sexually abused Leslie, and that the District and Andersen were negligent in hiring and supervising Diaz.
- In their answer, the District and Andersen asserted the affirmative defense that Christensen's voluntary participation constituted contributory fault under state law.
- Christensen filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to strike this affirmative defense.
- The U.S. District Court deferred ruling and certified the question of law to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Washington Tort Reform Act, can a 13-year-old victim of sexual abuse by her teacher have contributory fault assessed against her for her participation in the relationship, in a negligence action brought against the school district and principal?
Opinions:
Majority - Alexander, C.J.
No. A child under the age of 16 may not have contributory fault assessed against her for her participation in a sexual relationship with her teacher, as she lacks the capacity to consent and is under no legal duty to protect herself from the sexual abuse. This conclusion is based on two principal reasons. First, the strong public policy embodied in criminal statutes, which make consent irrelevant in statutory rape cases, should apply equally in the civil context to protect children who are too immature to legally or rationally consent. Second, Washington law recognizes a 'special relationship' between a school and its students, imposing an enhanced and solemn duty on the school to protect them, which conflicts with the idea that a student has a reciprocal duty to protect herself from sexual abuse by her teacher at school.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Madsen, J.
No, but only as to the teacher. While the teacher, as an intentional tortfeasor, cannot raise the defense of contributory fault, the school district and principal, who are sued for negligence, should not be barred from doing so. A 13-year-old student still has a legal duty to exercise reasonable care for her own safety and to mitigate damages. The majority's holding is overly broad because it blurs the line between the teacher's intentional conduct and the school's alleged negligence, and it prevents a jury from considering whether the student's own actions, such as lying to investigators, contributed to her injuries caused by the school's alleged negligence.
Dissenting - Sanders, J.
Yes. A school district should be able to raise the defense of contributory fault against a student who undermines an investigation into potential abuse. The purposes of criminal law (punishment) and civil law (compensation) are different, so the rule barring a consent defense in criminal cases should not automatically apply in civil tort actions. Washington law generally holds minors responsible for contributory negligence, and this should be a question of fact for the jury to decide whether the minor had the capacity to understand her actions and apportion liability accordingly, especially where the student's alleged dishonesty thwarted the school's efforts to protect her.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line, public policy-based rule in Washington that immunizes minor victims of teacher-student sexual abuse from claims of contributory fault in negligence suits against the school district. By importing the policy behind criminal statutory rape laws into civil torts, the court prioritizes the protection of vulnerable children over a strict application of comparative fault principles. This strengthens the 'special relationship' doctrine, making it significantly more difficult for school districts to shift blame to the student victim, although it does not preclude them from arguing they were not negligent in the first place. The dissents highlight a key tension, arguing that this categorical rule may unfairly penalize a school that acts in good faith but is thwarted by a student's own deceptive conduct.
