## Facts

- A 14-year-old ninth-grade student at a public high school was emotionally handicapped and learning disabled, functioning academically at a third- to fourth-grade level and described as naïve and socially immature.
- During the morning at school, at least three teachers observed her wearing a miniskirt, considered it inappropriate, and twice required her to change back into a more conservative dress.
- During the lunch period, a male student took her by the arm, led her out of the school building to a car, and drove her off campus to a house; other male students also left campus in other cars to the same location.
- At the house, five male students forced the student to have sexual intercourse.
- The student’s parents sued the county school board for negligence, alleging the board and its employees failed to provide reasonably safe conditions and adequate supervision during school hours on school premises and areas under school control, including preventing students from leaving without authorization.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the school board, treating the claim as an attack on the school’s “level of security” (a discretionary function protected by sovereign immunity) and also finding insufficient evidence of breach even if the duty were operational.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged failure to supervise students during school hours on school premises and adjacent areas under school control is an operational duty (not protected by sovereign immunity) or a discretionary policy decision about campus security (immune).
2. Whether genuine issues of material fact existed on breach and proximate causation, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for the school board.
- The court held the duty to supervise students during school hours on school premises and appurtenant areas is an operational duty arising from common law, statutes, and board rules, and is not barred by sovereign immunity.
- The court found disputed issues of material fact on whether the school board breached its supervisory duty and whether any breach proximately caused the abduction and sexual assault.
- The case was remanded for a jury trial on all issues.

## Legal Principles

- A school board’s duty to supervise students under its control during school hours on school property and related areas is an operational function, not a discretionary planning-level decision.
- Sovereign immunity does not bar negligence claims based on operational failures in carrying out established supervisory responsibilities.
- When evidence permits competing inferences about adequacy of supervision and causation of injury by third-party criminal acts, summary judgment is inappropriate and the issues are for the jury.
- Courts should focus on the specific governmental function challenged; labeling an operational supervision claim as “security level” does not convert it into a discretionary, immune policy decision.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the negligence action to proceed because student supervision is an operational duty and the record contained material factual disputes about whether inadequate supervision allowed the student to be taken off campus during school hours and assaulted.


Doe v. Escambia Cnty. Sch. Bd., 599 So. 2d 226 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1992)