|
2003 REVIEW DENIED After its employees participated in a campaign to intimidate a student who had complained that she was molested by a teacher, causing the student to recant her complaint, the school district was estopped from asserting defenses based on statutory time limits when the student subsequently started a lawsuit; a school district that was unaware that a student had been molested by a teacher could not have engaged in conduct designed to intimidate or delay her and so was not estopped from asserting defenses based on statutory time limits; an apportionment of fault 100% to a school district for negligent employment and 0% to the teacher who molested a student was a logical impossibility, since if the teacher had done nothing wrong, negligence by the district would not have resulted in injury.CitationORTEGA v VALLEY USD (Middle School Molestation) 64 CA4 1023 [See: GovC 900 etseq; Driscoll v City of LA 67 C2 297; Christopher P v Mojave USD 19 CA4 165, T/AT 12/93]
|
|
