A lesson for HR leaders when assessing a threat to employees

In Cleveland v. Taft Union High School District et al., a 16-year-old high school student shot a fellow student in the stomach with a shotgun during their science class.

The shooter was charged with two counts of attempted murder with enhancements, pleaded no contest, and was sentenced to 27 years and four months imprisonment. The injured student filed a personal injury complaint against the school district, the superintendent, the principal and the assistant principal. His claims included general negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The defendants generally denied the claims and raised several affirmative defenses, including immunity under s. 820.2 and s. 855.6 of the Government Code. They filed a cross-complaint for indemnity and apportionment of fault against the shooter, his mother and his older brother.

The jury found the school district’s employees 54% responsible for the injuries and held the district vicariously liable for about $2 million, which prompted the district to appeal.

Read more: Can a school district and its employees be liable for a student athlete’s injury?

The California Court of Appeal for the Fifth District affirmed the judgment. The campus supervisor’s negligence in dealing with certain information was a cause of the harm to the injured party, the appellate court ruled. The campus supervisor did not report a conversation about employees feeling afraid of the shooter...

Read Full Story: https://www.hcamag.com/us/specialization/employment-law/court-finds-school-di...