Rogers by and Through Standley v. Retrum
825 P.2d 20, 170 Ariz. 399 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A high school's implementation of an open campus policy, which allows students unsupervised egress from school grounds, does not create an unreasonable risk of harm and therefore does not constitute a breach of the school's duty of reasonable care for students injured in off-campus traffic accidents.
Facts:
- Randolph Retrum, a teacher at Prescott High School, deliberately and falsely told his sixteen-year-old student, Kevin C. Rogers, that he had failed an electronics test.
- When Rogers asked why, Retrum replied, "Because I don’t like you," and threw the test in his direction.
- Retrum had an 'open class' policy, permitting students to leave his classroom before the period was over.
- Prescott High School maintained an 'open campus' policy, which allowed students to enter and leave the campus freely during the school day.
- Humiliated and upset, Rogers left class and then the school campus with his friend, Natalo Russo, in Russo's car.
- While driving away from the school, Russo accelerated to over 90 miles per hour, lost control of the car, and crashed.
- Rogers was ejected from the vehicle during the crash and sustained serious injuries.
- Retrum later admitted that Rogers had actually passed the test and he had lied to show Rogers 'what it felt like to fail.'
Procedural Posture:
- Kevin C. Rogers filed a negligence lawsuit in the trial court against his teacher, Randolph Retrum, and the Prescott Unified School District.
- Rogers settled separate negligence claims against the driver, Natalo Russo, and Russo's parents.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Rogers's claims against Retrum and the school district.
- Rogers, the plaintiff, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the intermediate court of appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a high school and its teacher breach their duty of care by implementing an 'open class' and 'open campus' policy, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of vehicular injury to a student who leaves campus during school hours?
Opinions:
Majority - Fidel, Presiding Judge
No, a high school and its teacher do not breach their duty of care under these circumstances because an open campus policy does not create an unreasonable risk of harm. The court acknowledged that the school district owed Rogers a duty of reasonable care and that the open campus policy was a 'but-for' cause of the injury. However, the analysis turns not on foreseeability but on whether the risk created was unreasonable. The court concluded that the risk of a vehicular accident is an ordinary risk faced by mobile members of society, including teenage drivers and passengers. The school's policy did not increase this general risk; it merely chose not to shield students from an ordinary danger they would face outside of school. Citing policy reasons, the court declined to make high school districts that adopt open campus policies insurers against the ordinary risks of off-campus vehicular injury, distinguishing this from a situation where a school's specific actions, like inadequate driver's education supervision, might increase the risk.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of a school's duty of care by distinguishing between a foreseeable risk and an unreasonable one. It establishes that for high school students, a school's duty to protect does not extend to shielding them from the ordinary risks of the outside world, such as traffic accidents, even during school hours. By focusing on the 'unreasonable risk' element of a negligence claim, the decision provides significant protection to school districts with open campus policies, preventing them from being held as insurers for all off-campus student conduct. The ruling sets a precedent that policy considerations, such as student autonomy and the administrative decisions of school boards, are relevant in determining the outer limits of a school's liability.
