## Facts

- Kathleen Peterson, a student at City College of San Francisco, was assaulted on April 25, 1978, while using a stairway in the college parking lot.
- The attacker allegedly emerged from dense, untrimmed foliage and trees adjacent to the stairway and attempted to rape her.
- Peterson alleged prior similar assaults had occurred at the same location and that the community college district knew of them and had taken some steps to protect students.
- Peterson alleged the district did not publicize the prior attacks and did not warn students that similar assaults might occur.
- Peterson sued the San Francisco Community College District and its agents under the California Tort Claims Act, alleging (1) negligence based on a school-student relationship and (2) liability for a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code § 835.
- The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether a community college district owes its students a duty to exercise due care to protect them from reasonably foreseeable criminal assaults on campus, including a duty to warn of known dangers.
2. Whether statutory immunity for failure to provide police protection bars claims based on failure to warn students of known, specific criminal dangers.
3. Whether allegations that overgrown foliage created concealment for assailants, combined with prior similar incidents, sufficiently plead a “dangerous condition of public property” under Government Code § 835 despite the criminal act of a third party.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the district owed a duty of due care to its students to protect against reasonably foreseeable assaults, including reasonable measures to warn of known dangers.
- The court held the district was immune to the extent the claims rested on inadequate police protection, but not immune for negligent failure to warn of known dangers posed by criminals on campus.
- The court held the complaint adequately alleged a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code § 835, where dense foliage allegedly facilitated ambush and the risk was allegedly known and foreseeable.

## Legal Principles

- A school-student relationship can impose a duty on the school to take reasonable steps to protect students from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal acts by third parties.
- Immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection does not categorically preclude liability for failure to warn of known, specific dangers on property under the entity’s control.
- A public entity may be liable under Government Code § 835 when a dangerous condition of public property creates a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury incurred, the condition proximately causes the injury, and the entity created the condition or had actual or constructive notice with time to take protective measures.
- On general demurrer, well-pleaded factual allegations are taken as true for purposes of testing whether a cause of action has been stated.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the student’s claims to proceed because a community college may owe students reasonable care against foreseeable campus assaults and may face liability for failing to warn of known, specific criminal dangers and for maintaining a dangerous condition of public property, even though it retains immunity for claims grounded solely in inadequate police protection.


Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist., 36 Cal. 3d 799, 685 P.2d 1193 (Cal. 1984)