## Facts

- Ernest P. Brownell III, a high school student, left school at the end of the day and stood on a public sidewalk along the street adjacent to the campus while waiting for friends to walk to a bus stop.
- About five minutes after dismissal, several youths displaying gang colors approached Brownell on the sidewalk.
- An assailant swung at Brownell, forcing him into the street, where another assailant produced a gun and shot him.
- The shooting occurred on a public street/sidewalk bordering the school, not on school property, immediately after school ended.
- Brownell sued the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), alleging negligent supervision during dismissal because staff released students without first determining whether gang members were waiting outside the school.
- Evidence showed LAUSD had general anti-gang measures on campus (e.g., prohibiting gang colors, confiscating weapons, attempting to control gang behavior).
- There was no evidence that, on the day of the shooting, school personnel had notice of a specific threat or a likely gang incident at dismissal.
- A jury awarded Brownell $120,000; LAUSD appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether LAUSD breached its duty of reasonable student supervision by dismissing students when a student was shot by gang members on an adjacent public street immediately after school, absent notice of a specific threatened or likely incident that day.
2. Whether a school district can be liable for a student’s injury occurring off school premises and after school hours when the alleged negligent act or omission occurred while the student was under school supervision.
3. Whether Brownell’s government claim was sufficient to support a negligent-supervision theory and whether additional trial errors required reversal.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for Brownell.
- The court held LAUSD was not liable because the attack was not a known or reasonably foreseeable risk on the specific facts presented and LAUSD’s supervision did not fall below reasonable care.
- The court rejected a categorical rule barring liability for off-campus, after-hours injuries, stating such liability may exist when the injury results from the school’s negligence while the student is on campus.
- Because the case was resolved on duty/foreseeability and lack of breach, the court did not reach LAUSD’s remaining appellate arguments regarding claim sufficiency and alleged trial errors.
- The court denied Brownell’s request for sanctions for a frivolous appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Public schools have a special relationship with students and must exercise reasonable care in supervising and protecting them from reasonably foreseeable dangers.
- A school district may be liable for injuries suffered off school premises and after school hours if the injury is proximately caused by the district’s negligence while the student was under school supervision.
- Foreseeability limits the scope of required supervision; general awareness of neighborhood gang activity does not, without specific notice of an imminent or likely incident, require extraordinary measures aimed at controlling adjacent public streets.
- Reasonable supervision does not make a school an insurer against sudden criminal acts of third parties occurring off campus without specific warning signs.

## Conclusion

The court reversed a jury verdict against LAUSD, holding that although schools owe students a duty of reasonable supervision that can extend to some off-campus harms caused by on-campus negligence, the district did not breach that duty where the post-dismissal off-campus gang shooting was not specifically foreseeable and the plaintiff’s proposed pre-dismissal street-inspection obligation exceeded reasonable care on the record presented.


Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 4 Cal. App. 4th 787 (Ct. App. 1992)