School is over, but schools’ responsibility toward students could remain long after the dismissal bell rings. A student who was stabbed in her high school’s parking lot when her track team was dismissed early may now get redress for her injuries. An appellate court remanded her case to Superior Court to determine and decide triable issues of fact.

A three-judge panel from Division Three of California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment order in favor of the school district by Judge Richard Y. Lee of the Superior Court of Orange County on June 28. Although the plaintiff, C. Achay, suffered serious injuries, Lee dismissed her negligence case against the Huntington Beach Union School District. Lee believed the District had no duty of care because Achay “was no longer on campus during school hours doing a school-related activity.” Achay filed a motion for a new trial and rehearing.

The Court of Appeal agreed with her and overruled the contrary finding of the trial court. They said “the District owed Achay a duty of care because she was stabbed while she was on campus during “school-related or encouraged functions.” The school was open to the public, and the attack occurred during “ongoing after-school sports activities.” The opinion said that it was “predictable” that students would still be on campus at 6 p.m.

Achay, who was in the tenth grade, will now get a chance to explain what happened to her while she was waiting for her friend’s mother to pick her up after track practice. On the day of her attack, practice ended early, so she went to a nearby Starbucks with a friend. On her way back to school, they encountered a “suspicious stranger” who was rollerblading and “taunting” them.

The stranger was later identified as A. Meer, a former student. As they continued on their way, Meer kept bothering them, so they moved closer to a fence to avoid contact. Her friend was so concerned about Meer that she called another friend and asked her to “stay on the line” until they returned to safety. The girls also asked a male friend, a lacrosse player, to help them. When he left, Meer remained.

Achay and her friend went to the girls’ locker room at about 5:30. It was still open. Achay got her books, and they both went to the varsity locker room because they “didn’t feel safe” and could lock the varsity locker room’s door. They left at the time their ride was to arrive. To get there, they walked by the swimming pool, where practice was still going on.

They then saw Meer again. He was still rollerblading and approached Achay. As he passed by her, he struck her and kept on going. She felt pain and noticed that there was blood on her hand where Meer had hit her. The friend dialed 911. They then went to the swimming pool to tell the coach about the stabbing. Paramedics arrived and an ambulance took Achay to the hospital where she learned her colon had been pierced, requiring two surgeries and the continual wearing of a colostomy bag.

The appellate opinion began with a strong disagreement with Judge Lee’s ruling. Citing precedent, Judge Eileen C. Moore explained, “Schools have a ‘special relationship’ with their students; therefore, schools are required to use reasonable measures to protect students from foreseeable injury at the hands of third parties negligently or intentionally.”

She went on to explain that Achay was on campus to get her books from an open locker room, near where another sports team was still practicing. Although she left campus briefly to get a snack, Moore called her brief absence a “red herring” that did not make her “no longer on campus doing a school-related activity,” as Lee determined.

She also scolded Lee for inappropriately concluding that he doubted that more security would not have prevented the incident. She said the question of whether the school district used adequate security was “plainly a triable issue of material fact” that did not deserve his ruling.

The opinion then elaborated on key facts, including information about the school day, which was normally 7 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Supervisors were on duty until 4 p.m. After 2:30, the school remained open and “became like a public park.” There was no supervision after sports practice where coaches were present. In the three years prior to Achay’s attack, 30 student safety accidents took place on campus, but none occurred after 2:30 p.m.

The appellate discussion began by explaining that the moving party bears the burden to show that no triable issue of fact exists. Here, there are several. Moore wrote that a negligence claim requires duty, breach, causation and damages. She stressed that a duty of care exists if there is a “special relation between the actor and the third person,” and wrote that a school district and its students have that relationship which “results in the imposition of an affirmative duty on the school district to take all reasonable steps to protect its students.” This includes taking measures that a reasonably prudent person would foresee.

She next turned to the critical negligence elements of breach, causation and injury, all of which she said are “fact-specific issues for the trier of fact.” She emphasized that the appellate court was not finding that the District breached its duty because “that is left to the trier of fact.” Causation, too, is a matter for the jury who must determine whether the evidence showed that the school “used reasonable security measures to protect its students.” Finally, it would also be up to the jury to determine whether the school district’s conduct actually caused Achay’s injuries.

All of these are questions of fact, so Achay will get her day in court.