One of the cases in Prince Georges County, Maryland, heard by the Court of Special Appeals had to do with a fifteen year old girl leaving school grounds during the day against the policy of the school. The girl was taken by her uncle-in-law from the school and to his home. He did not have permission to take her off the premises. When they arrived at his home they had sexual intercourse. He was later arrested and convicted on charges of statutory rape.
The girl and her mother sued the school for negligence. They specifically asked the court, “does a school’s negligence in permitting a minor child student to leave school grounds in violation of school policy act as the superceding and proximate cause of the injuries late sustained to the minor child when the injuries sustained were foreseeable by the school?” and “is it possible for a fifteen-year old female to assume the risk of statutory rape when one of the elements of the defense is voluntariness on the part of the minor and the minor testifies that she was enamored, scared and did what the predator told her to do and when the law clearly states that consent/voluntariness cannot exist on the part of a minor who is statutorily raped?”
There are two points to be considered in this case. 1) was the schools negligence the proximate cause of her injuries? If she had not left the school grounds would the rape have been avoided? 2) Can a fifteen-year old girl assume the risk of her situation if she was “enamored and scared” (her judgment impaired) and if a minor’s consent to sexual intercourse in a criminal case is not applicable?
The school argued that the girl assumed the risk of her actions and that the school could not be held negligent for letting her leave the premises. The court agreed. The explanation, however, was not so simple. The judges relied on the specific facts of the case to rule on the side of the school.
Here are the facts: During a Thanksgiving holiday before the event in question, her uncle made sexual advances toward the girl including lifting her shirt and skirt. The next Monday the uncle phoned the girl in the morning before she left for school and told her he was going to come to school and pick her up “so he could take [her] to his house and have sex with [her]”. After lunch the uncle arrived at school and the girl was called out of class to “give a key” to her uncle. The uncle tried to take her from school but the school secretary said he could not. After the giving of the key, the secretary walked out of the office with both the girl and her uncle and watched as they left in separate directions. When the secretary returned to the office, the girl and her uncle rejoined somehow and left the school premises together. There was a guard booth at the entrance to the school which was unmanned at the time the girl and her uncle left he premises together. The uncle then drove them to his house, where he had intercourse with her. He then returned her to the school ten minutes before the school dismissal time.
The opining judge describes what assumption of risk involves: the student must have knowledge and appreciation of the risk. The judge rules that because the girl was the subject of sexual advances by the uncle previously and because he called her and told her what he planned to do the morning of the assault, that the girl had a knowledge and appreciation of the risk involved. The judge then states that “there are some cases that do say there may not be an assumption of risk where there is no alternative available”. The judge said that there were alternatives available. These could have included talking to her mother the first time the advances occurred, staying in the office when her uncle came to pick her up or returning to class. If she had taken any of these steps the incident would have been averted.
Therefore the school’s allowing the girl to leave was not the proximate cause of her injury and the girl did assume the risk of her actions.
The judge also explains that although assumption of risk (or consent) of a minor is not applicable in a criminal case, it is applicable in a civil case, even one that involves statutory rape.
This case presents some serious questions to schools that are not gated or those that provide easy opportunities for students to leave at will. The school I work at and many other schools that I have been to have numerous buildings that middle and high school students walk back and forth to for various classes. One of the concerns, as stated by an administrator is this: what would be the consequences if students were not supervised properly as they walked from building to building and were taken by a sexual predator? This raises the question of whether schools that are not gated have supervision regulations to avert such a possibility as this.
And even if the above scenario is far fetched in some people’s minds, this next one isn’t. All schools have children who are involved in their parents divorce, parents who are fighting for custody of their children. The school I work at has, at numerous times, had to stop one or another parent from picking up a child for which they have lost custody. The question then is, to what extent would the school be held liable if the child were taken from school, either knowingly or by snatching him during the day while he was walking from one building to another?
In this case the female student assumed the risk of her actions, but that is not the case in all instances.
Schools have a duty of care. That care involves proper supervision. Moreover, if the school has a policy which bars students from leaving the school without proper permission yet the school fails to institute rules to enforce that policy and a student leaves without permission and is injured in some way then the school is likely to be the target of a negligence case.