## Facts

- Ana G. and Matthew, students at a public high school in Deer Valley Unified School District, had dated; Matthew previously dated another student, Raven.
- After conflicts involving Matthew’s statements about the girls, a prior on-campus confrontation led to suspensions; Raven reported Matthew had been physically abusive to her.
- During a school day in March 2014, Matthew texted Ana that he would “take care” of Raven as Raven walked home; Ana reported the text to school officials and described Matthew’s prior violence toward Raven.
- School officials implemented a plan for Raven’s safe departure from campus, including an escort by the school resource officer.
- The next day, Matthew again did not attend school; Ana told school officials she planned to meet Matthew after school at a friend’s house to “talk matters over,” and stated she was not concerned he would harm her.
- School officials advised Ana not to meet Matthew but did not stop her from leaving campus or otherwise control her after school.
- After the school day ended, Ana voluntarily went to a friend’s home off campus; Matthew shot and killed Ana and then killed himself.
- Ana’s mother sued the school district and school employees (and also the City and the officer) for negligence and wrongful death, alleging a failure to take reasonable steps to protect Ana.

## Issues

1. Whether the school district’s special relationship with a student created a duty to protect her from a fellow student’s off-campus criminal act occurring after school ended.
2. Whether alleged foreseeability of harm based on prior violence and reported threats is part of the legal duty analysis or instead pertains to breach and causation.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court held the school district owed no duty to Ana under the school–student special relationship on these facts.
- The Court vacated the portion of the court of appeals’ decision recognizing a duty and affirmed summary judgment for the school district and its employees.
- The Court treated duty as a question of law and did not reach breach or causation as to the district once it found no duty.
- The City’s favorable judgment remained in place.

## Legal Principles

- Duty in negligence is a legal question determined by recognized relationships or special circumstances, not by case-specific foreseeability.
- The school–student relationship can impose protective duties, but the duty is limited to risks within the scope of the relationship.
- The scope of a school’s duty is tied to the school’s custodial role and supervisory control (typically on campus or during school-sponsored, supervised activities).
- When a student has left campus after the school day and is not subject to school control, the school–student relationship generally does not extend to protecting the student from off-campus, after-hours private conduct.
- Foreseeability of harm is analyzed in breach and causation, not in deciding whether a duty exists.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that, because Ana’s death occurred off campus after school ended and outside any school custody or supervision, the school–student relationship did not create a duty to protect her from Matthew’s criminal act, and summary judgment for the school district and its employees was proper.


Dinsmoor v. City of Phoenix, 492 P.3d 313 (Ariz. 2021)