## Facts

- Leslie Christensen, age 13, was an eighth-grade student at Royal Middle School in the Royal School District No. 160.
- The school employed Steven Diaz, age 26, as a teacher; Preston “Kent” Andersen was the principal.
- On multiple dates in February and March 2001, Diaz engaged in sexual activity with Christensen in his classroom on school premises.
- Christensen and her parents sued Diaz, the school district, and Andersen, alleging negligence in hiring and supervising Diaz.
- The district and principal asserted an affirmative defense under Washington’s Tort Reform Act (RCW 4.22) that Christensen’s participation constituted contributory fault.
- The federal district court certified to the Washington Supreme Court whether contributory fault could be assessed against Christensen in this setting.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Washington’s Tort Reform Act (RCW 4.22), a 13-year-old student sexually abused by a teacher at school may be assigned contributory fault in a negligence action against the school district and principal for negligent hiring and supervision.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court answered the certified question no.
- The court held that, as a matter of law, a child under 16 may not have contributory fault assessed for participation in a sexual relationship of this type with an adult teacher.
- The court reasoned that the child lacks legal capacity to consent to such sexual activity and has no legal duty to protect herself from sexual abuse by a teacher.
- The court also relied on the school district’s special relationship with students, which imposes a heightened duty on the district to protect minor students in its care.

## Legal Principles

- Comparative/contributory fault under RCW 4.22 requires a breach of a legal duty by the plaintiff; a child under 16 has no legal duty to protect herself from sexual abuse by an adult teacher in the school setting.
- A child under 16 lacks legal capacity to consent to sexual activity with an adult in this context; civil fault allocation cannot treat the child as capable of “voluntary participation” for purposes of reducing defendants’ liability.
- The special relationship between a school district and its students imposes an enhanced duty on the district to protect minor students, which is inconsistent with shifting responsibility to the student through fault allocation.
- Public policy supporting prevention and deterrence of child sexual abuse favors placing responsibility on adult perpetrators and responsible supervisory authorities rather than the minor victim.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court held that contributory fault cannot be assessed against a child under 16 for participation in sexual abuse by a teacher on school premises, precluding the school district and principal from reducing liability in the student’s negligence action by attributing comparative fault to the minor.


Christensen v. Royal Sch. Dist. No. 160, 156 Wash. 2d 62, 124 P.3d 283 (Wash. 2005)