九色

A New Jersey public school district may be held vicariously liable for sexual abuse by a teacher even if the abuse took place outside of the scope of the teacher’s employment and off school property.

The New Jersey Supreme Court in a 6-1 opinion recently ruled that the state’s Child Victims Act that was enacted in 2019 “fundamentally altered” the law governing civil claims against public entities and certain private entities arising from sexual abuse.

The ruling came in response to appeals from four people who alleged that New Jersey public school teachers sexually abused them when they were high school students. The cases are Russell Forde Hornor v. Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education and Ormond Simpkins, Jr. v. South Orange-Maplewood School District. In both cases, an appeals court had dismissed the claims against the school districts after finding the law does not allow vicarious liability for the alleged conduct.

On March 11, the high court reversed, finding that the Child Victims Act eliminated immunities that public entities had enjoyed under prior law.

The school districts had argued that the teachers’ misconduct was outside the scope of employment and thus the schools were protected from liability under the Tort Claims Act. (TCA). The TCA, enacted in 1972, barred virtually all claims for public entity vicarious liability arising from public employees’ sexual assaults of children.

However, in 2019, the Child Victims Act “fundamentally altered the law governing civil claims against public entities and certain private entities arising from sexual abuse,” the high court concluded.

Four Cases

The court said that with this newer law, vicarious liability claims against a public entity for a public employee’s sexual misconduct are not categorically barred solely on the basis that the alleged sexual misconduct is beyond the scope of employment. Neither the TCA’s broad general rule of immunity nor any of its provisions that confer immunity in specific settings apply to claims premised on sexual assault and other sexual misconduct, the high court held.

In his action, Hornor asserted that the Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education was vicariously liable for science teacher Charles Hutler’s alleged sexual abuse of him at Hutler’s home in 1979, when Hornor was 15 years old, and that the school board breached a fiduciary duty to him.

The trial court denied the board’s motion to dismiss Hornor’s claims. The appellate court reversed on appeal. The appellate court also reversed the trial court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss Hornor’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

The three cases brought against the South Orange-Maplewood School District — consolidated as Simpkins — arose from sexual abuse allegedly committed by English and special education teacher Nicole Dufault. The three plaintiffs allege that Dufault sexually assaulted them during and after school hours, including on school grounds. The trial court granted the school district’s motions to dismiss in all three cases. The appellate court consolidated the cases and affirmed. As in Hornor, the appellate court in Simpkins held that the Child Victims Act does not allow vicarious liability for the alleged conduct.

New Standard

In overturning those vicarious liability opinions, the state Supreme Court set forth a standard for a determination of vicarious liability claims asserted against public schools under the Child Victims Act. The court said the factfinder must determine that:

• (1) The school gave the employee who allegedly committed sexual abuse or other sexual misconduct the authority to control the student’s educational environment;
• (2) the school employee’s exercise of that authority resulted in the sexual abuse or sexual misconduct; and
• (3) it reasonably appeared that the school employee’s sexual abuse of or sexual misconduct against the student was tacitly approved by the school.

The court said application of the standard involves a “case-specific inquiry, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.”

The decision is expected to have a “substantial impact on litigation involving alleged sexual abuse by school employees in New Jersey,” according to lawyers at Schenck Price Smith & King. In a , they wrote that “the opinion is seemingly designed to motivate proactive safeguarding by making and enforcing policies but may have the effect of increasing litigation and defense costs for school districts faced with defending such claims.”

No Fiduciary Duty

The high court also found that a public school does not owe a student a fiduciary duty as Hornor argued. The high court agreed with the Appellate Division’s determination that a public school district “owes obligations to multiple stakeholders involved in educating the district’s children, often with conflicting interests,” and that the imposition of a fiduciary duty to a specific student would be incompatible with “the duty’s defining characteristic of undivided loyalty to a particular person or interest.” The court therefore affirmed that Hornor’s breach of fiduciary duty claim should be dismissed.

All four cases were remanded to the trial courts for further proceedings.

Topics New Jersey K-12