Background
Victoria Magistrale attended Silverado High School in the Victor Valley Union High School District in San Bernardino County from 1998 to 2001. She alleges that Mark Lizama, a district math teacher and ROTC assistant commandant, sexually assaulted her on three occasions between 1999 and 2001. Significantly, the first assault began when Lizama offered to drive her from an after-school ROTC activity and instead took her to his home. On at least one occasion, Lizama openly walked through the school with Magistrale — passing the front office and at least one other employee — then escorted her into the parking lot and drove her off campus in his personal vehicle without any apparent interference or policy in place to stop such conduct. Lizama was eventually charged, tried, and convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and oral copulation with a minor.
In 2023, Magistrale filed suit against the District under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1, which extends the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims. The District moved for summary judgment, arguing it was completely immune from liability because all three assaults occurred off campus. The trial court denied summary judgment, finding a triable issue as to whether the District’s on-campus supervisory failures proximately caused the off-campus harms. The District petitioned the Fourth District Court of Appeal for a writ directing the trial court to grant summary judgment.
The appellate court denied the writ, and its ruling amounts to a significant realignment of the law governing school district liability for student injuries.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Education Code section 44808 immunity depends on the location of the negligent act, not the location of the injury. Following the California Supreme Court’s 1978 decision in Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District (22 Cal.3d 508), the court explained that a school district cannot “automatically escape liability simply because the student’s ultimate injury occurs off school property” if the district’s own negligence occurred on campus. Because the evidence showed a teacher openly escorting a student through campus, past another employee, and into his personal vehicle without any policy to prevent such conduct, a jury could reasonably find that on-campus supervisory failures proximately caused the off-campus assaults.
The court then explicitly declined to follow three appellate decisions that had gotten the law wrong by focusing on the location of the injury rather than the negligent act: (1) its own 2005 decision in Mosley v. San Bernardino City Unified School District; (2) its own 2021 decision in LeRoy v. Yarboi (where a student was bullied at school and later died by suicide at home during summer break); and (3) the Fifth District’s 2025 decision in Vallejo City Unified School District v. Superior Court.
Justice Raphael’s concurrence offers a thorough textual analysis supporting the same conclusion. Section 44808 provides immunity unless the district either (a) specifically assumes responsibility for students off campus or (b) “has failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.” The concurrence explains that the “reasonable care” clause is a separate, independent basis for liability — not merely a modifier of the “specific undertaking” clause — and that the Supreme Court confirmed this reading in Hoyem.
Key Takeaways
- School district immunity under Education Code section 44808 turns on where the district’s negligent act occurred — not where the student was ultimately injured; on-campus negligence can support liability for off-campus harm.
- This decision explicitly overrules the Fourth District’s own prior decisions in Mosley (2005) and LeRoy (2021) and declines to follow the Fifth District’s Vallejo (2025) — a notable and unusually frank self-correction.
- A district’s failure to maintain any policy preventing employees from transporting students off campus can itself constitute negligent supervision occurring on campus.
- Plaintiffs in school sexual abuse cases need not show the assault occurred on campus to defeat a section 44808 immunity defense; they need only show on-campus negligence that proximately caused the harm.
- Section 44808’s “failed to exercise reasonable care” clause is an independent basis for liability that survives even when the district has not “specifically assumed” responsibility for off-campus activities.
Why It Matters
School districts in California frequently invoke Education Code section 44808 as a near-absolute defense in student injury and sexual abuse cases, asserting that off-campus harm is categorically beyond their liability exposure. This ruling substantially narrows that defense. For survivors of school-related abuse suing under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 (the extended statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse), the decision eliminates the need to show the assault itself occurred on school grounds — what matters is whether the district’s supervisory failures happened on campus.
For school districts and their legal counsel, the ruling is a clear signal that written, enforced policies governing teacher-student interactions and off-campus transportation are not just best practices but litigation necessities. A district that cannot demonstrate it had any measures in place to prevent employees from transporting teenage students off campus will struggle to establish the section 44808 immunity. The decision likely will also prompt reexamination of pending summary judgment motions in other childhood sexual abuse cases that relied on the now-overruled Mosley/LeRoy analysis.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket