A 14-year-old student, C.L., was struck by a car in August 2021 while attempting to cross a busy section of 59th Avenue in Phoenix, just before the start of the school day at Betty H. Fairfax High School, a public high school operated by Phoenix Union High School District. C.L. had crossed the street from a city-owned dirt lot where some students were routinely dropped off by parents to avoid traffic backups at the School’s main entrance. While the School did not instruct families to use the lot or promote jaywalking, administrators were aware that some families did so, and took no steps to prevent it or warn of the associated risks.
On the morning of the incident, C.L. walked to school along the dirt lot, and attempted to jaywalk across 59th Avenue to reach campus. He was struck by a vehicle and suffered serious and permanent injuries. Through his father, C.L. filed suit against the School District, alleging negligence, gross negligence, and premises liability. He claimed that the School had failed to provide a safe means of access to campus and should have taken steps to prevent or mitigate the danger of students crossing in an unsafe location.
The trial court denied the District’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the School had knowledge of a foreseeable danger and may have had a duty to intervene. The Court of Appeals also declined to grant relief. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to clarify the scope of a school’s duty of care to a student crossing the street with the intent to enter school grounds.
To prevail on the claims, the Court explained that C.L. must show that the District owed him a duty to conform to a particular standard of conduct. C.L. argued that the School-student relationship created a special duty under Arizona law, requiring the School to provide a reasonably safe means of ingress and egress to and from campus. He relied heavily on prior precedent recognizing that schools function as custodians, land possessors, and stand-ins for parents during the school day, and that this relationship may sometimes extend beyond campus boundaries in specific, limited contexts.
The District, in turn, argued that its duty of care did not apply because the student was off School property, was not yet under the School’s supervision, and had not been directed to enter campus in that manner. The District also emphasized that the street where the accident occurred was public property over which it had no authority to control traffic or install safety infrastructure.
The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and ruled in favor of the District. The Court reaffirmed that a school’s duty to protect students from harm is generally limited to times and places where the student is within the School’s custody and control. In this case, C.L. had not yet entered school grounds, was not participating in any school-sponsored activity, and was not using an entrance or route that the School had encouraged or maintained.
The Court rejected the argument that the District had created an unsafe condition by failing to prevent jaywalking or discourage drop-offs in the dirt lot. It found no evidence that the School’s design or conduct contributed to the risk of harm. The danger, the Court concluded, stemmed from the student’s decision to cross a busy public street outside a designated crosswalk, a risk not created or controlled by the District.
The Court also distinguished this situation from prior cases in which a school’s conduct on its own premises had created off-premises danger. Here, the School had not altered the street or controlled traffic flow, nor had it directed students to cross in that location. While the School may have been aware of the jaywalking practice, the Court held that mere foreseeability of harm does not establish a duty under Arizona law.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that holding the District liable would impermissibly extend a school’s duty of care to risks arising during a student’s private travel to campus. The Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision, reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the District.
Phx. Union High Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Sinclair (July 15, 2025) 2025 Ariz. LEXIS 216.
Note: This case involved a nuanced set of facts that was decided under Arizona law. A different result may have been reached under California law, where foreseeability of harm can be a factor in deciding whether there is a duty of care for schools, due to the special relationship between schools and students.