A.H. was a student at Tamalpais High School from 2000 to 2004, where he was coached by Normandie Burgos, a full-time P.E. teacher and tennis coach hired in 1998. A.H. began taking private tennis lessons from Burgos while still in middle school and viewed him as a mentor. In 2003, A.H.’s junior year, Burgos began sexually abusing him under the guise of providing therapeutic massages for sports-related issues. The abuse occurred in Burgos’s office and the coaches’ locker room adjacent to the boys’ locker room.
Concerns about Burgos’s behavior surfaced as early as 2002 when Principal Chris Holleran received a complaint from a student who reported inappropriate touching during a body fat test conducted by Burgos. Despite acknowledging the incident’s inappropriateness and creating an Incident Report/Letter of Warning to Burgos, Holleran did not place the warning in Burgos’s personnel file or inform other staff members, believing it to be an isolated incident and based upon an agreement with high-level administrators at the District.
Further evidence presented at trial revealed that between 1998 and 2001, several students experienced similar inappropriate conduct during body fat tests conducted by Burgos. These incidents involved invasive procedures that left students feeling uncomfortable and violated.
In 2020, A.H. filed a lawsuit against the Tamalpais Union High School District, alleging negligence in failing to protect him from Burgos’s sexual misconduct. The complaint highlighted the District’s failure to take appropriate action against Burgos despite multiple complaints and its lack of proper supervision.
During the trial, A.H.’s legal team presented evidence of prior complaints against Burgos and testimonies from other students who had experienced similar misconduct. This evidence aimed to demonstrate a pattern of behavior that should have prompted more decisive action from the District.
The jury was instructed using questions proposed by the District regarding negligence and causation. The jury ultimately found that the District was negligent and that this negligence substantially contributed to A.H.’s harm. The jury awarded A.H. $10 million in noneconomic damages for past and future losses, assigning 100% responsibility to the District. The District appealed.
On appeal, the District raised two main arguments. First, they claimed that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on crucial issues. In particular, the District argued that the trial court improperly instructed the jury because it failed to instruct (1) that the District could not be held vicariously liable for Burgos’ conduct, since conduct was not within Burgos’ scope of employment, and (2) that the District could only be held liable for the conduct of its supervisory employees.
The Court of Appeals evaluated the instructions as a whole rather than in isolation. The Court found no instructional error, emphasizing that a party is entitled to correct, non-argumentative instructions on every theory supported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals noted that a trial court is not required to use the specific words requested by a party as long as the jury is adequately instructed on the applicable law.
The Court found that the instructions given in this case were proper and sufficiently covered the relevant legal principles, even if the language was not exactly what the District wanted.
The second major issue on appeal was the admissibility of evidence regarding Burgos’s conduct with other students. The District argued that the trial court erred in allowing A.H. to present this evidence. However, the Court of Appeals determined that this information was crucial in establishing the District’s negligence in supervision. It helped demonstrate that the District had reason to be aware of Burgos’s inappropriate behavior and failed to take adequate measures to prevent further misconduct.
The Court’s analysis also addressed the District’s claim that the jury’s verdict assigning 100% responsibility to the District and 0% to Burgos was prejudicial because it was “legally impossible” and the apportionment of fault was allegedly not supported by sufficient evidence. The Court rejected this argument, as well. The District failed to show that there was an instructional error on the jury instructions, consequently waiving their argument that the jury verdict was prejudicial.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
A.H. v. Tamalpais Union High School Dist. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 340.
Note: The decision highlights the significant liability that schools may face when they fail to adequately respond to and prevent misconduct, emphasizing the importance of thorough investigations, proper documentation, and increased supervision following complaints of inappropriate behavior.