Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist.

Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Four

August 6, 1976

Civ. No. 36851

Opinion

 [*817]  [**855]   The novel -- and troublesome -- question on this appeal is whether a person who claims to have been inadequately educated, while a student in a public school system, may state a cause of action in tort against the public authorities who operate and administer the system. We hold that he may not.

The appeal reaches us upon plaintiff's first amended complaint (hereinafter the "complaint"), which purports to state seven causes of action. Respondents (San Francisco Unified School District, its superintendent of schools, its governing board, and the individual board members) appeared to it by filing general demurrers to all seven counts; we hereinafter [***2]  refer to them as "defendants." The trial court sustained their demurrers with 20 days' leave to amend. When plaintiff failed to amend within that period, the court entered a judgment dismissing his action.

 [**856]  On plaintiff's appeal, which is from the judgment, the question is whether a cause of action is stated against defendants in any of the complaint's seven counts. ( Glaire v. La Lanne-Paris Health Spa, Inc. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 915, 918 [117 Cal.Rptr. 541, 528 P.2d 357].) ] CA(1)(1) murrers as having provisionally admitted all material facts properly pleaded in it (ibid.), but not such allegations -- which appear throughout it -- as amount to "'contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law.'" ( Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 116, 122 [99 Cal.Rptr. 350].) We limit our summary of its contents accordingly.

The First Cause of Action

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

60 Cal. App. 3d 814 *; 131 Cal. Rptr. 854 **; 1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1774 ***

1 PETER W., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents

Subsequent History:  [***1]  Appellant's Petition for a Hearing by the Supreme Court was Denied September 29, 1976.

Prior History: Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco No. 653312, Ira A. Brown, Jr., Judge.

Disposition: The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

CORE TERMS

cause of action, duty of care, allegations, first count, school district, factors, skills, mandatory duty, Unified, public entity, requisite, liability for negligence, misrepresentation, authorities, employees, proximate result, governing board, read and write, public school, high school, decisions, graduated, immunity, damages, italics, schools, counts

Civil Procedure, Responses, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Defects of Form, Appeals, Standards of Review, General Overview, Governments, State & Territorial Governments, Claims By & Against, Healthcare Law, Actions Against Facilities, Facility Liability, Hospitals, Torts, Public Entity Liability, Liability, Pleadings, Heightened Pleading Requirements, Employers, Activities & Conditions, Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Trials, Jury Trials, Province of Court & Jury, Elements, Duty