MINOR v. ESCONDIDOUNIONSCHOOL DISTRICT Part II
In suit by autistic children against special education teacher alleging he used abusive conduct to control them, court did not err in stating in jury instructions on battery claim that, in addition to other elements, plaintiffs must prove teacher's touching of plaintiffs was unreasonable and that teacher intended to harm or offend them. Court did not err in failing to include on negligence portion of special verdict form the instruction that if any school district employee was negligent, district was negligent. Where plaintiffs did not claim that any district employees other than their teacher personally committed a battery upon them, court did not err in granting nonsuit on behalf of other district employees whom they alleged were joint tortfeasors who aided and abetted plaintiffs' teacher in his battery. Where none of plaintiffs' evidence gave rise to inference that teacher's motivation in allegedly abusing them was the fact that they were disabled children, court did not err in granting a nonsuit on their claim under Ralph Act, which prohibits acts of violence on account of disability. Where plaintiffs presented no evidence that teacher's actions caused them not to attend school, court did not err in granting nonsuit on Bane Act claim that teacher interfered with their constitutional right to free public education. Court did not err by excluding in limine evidence of teacher's alleged abuse of other children in his classroom where plaintiffs failed to make a specific offer of proof that such episodes occurred. Court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motion to reopen their case in chief before granting motion for nonsuit where plaintiffs' motion only cited evidence that had previously been presented, not further evidence they intended to submit if case were reopened. Court did not err in awarding fees to district attorney under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1038 as to the Bane Act and Ralph Act claims on basis those claims were brought without reasonable cause or good faith. Where all defendants were employees of district and had made a collective settlement offer to plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 998, court did not err in awarding them their expert witness costs.
Comments on MINOR v. ESCONDIDOUNIONSCHOOL DISTRICT Part II