Rush v. Corvallis School Dist. 509J

“A public body that owes a particular duty of care (such as that owed by a school district to its students who are required to be on school premises during school hours) has wide policy discretion in choosing the means by which to carry out that duty.” Mosley v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 315 Or. 85, 92, 843 P.2d 415, 419 (1992).

Plaintiff appealed judgment dismissing her negligence claims after the trial court granted summary judgment to the school district. Plaintiff argued that the district negligently failed to supervise students involved in a physical altercation. Additionally, Plaintiff asserted that the district negligently failed to follow and enforce its discipline protocols and anti-violence policies despite knowledge of the potential for violence. In response, the district argued that it provided supervision of students and that decisions as to the manner in which it supervised students were entitled to discretionary immunity. The district further argued there was no evidence the district knew or reasonably should have known of the impeding altercation. “A public body that owes a particular duty of care (such as that owed by a school district to its students who are required to be on school premises during school hours) has wide policy discretion in choosing the means by which to carry out that duty.” Mosley v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 315 Or. 85, 92, 843 P.2d 415, 419 (1992). The Court of Appeals held that the district had established discretionary immunity as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the district failed to exercise proper supervision of students and that the trial court did not err because the summary judgment record did not contain legally sufficient evidence to support a finding that the district had or should have had specific knowledge of the potential for violence between the students. Affirmed.