Phoenix Union High School v. Sinclair, No. CV-24-0307-PR (July 15, 2025) (C.J. Timmer) https://opinions.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2025/CV240307PR.pdf

SCHOOLS HAVE DUTY TO EXERCISE REASONABLE CARE TO PROTECT STUDENTS WHILE STUDENTS ARE WITHIN THE SCHOOL'S CUSTODY AND CONTROL OR WHERE A RISK OF HARM ARISES WHILE THE STUDENT IS WITHIN THE SCHOOL'S CUSTODY AND CONTROL/WHILE SCHOOLS MUST PROVIDE A REASONABLY SAFE MEANS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO SCHOOL THAT DUTY DOES NOT EXTEND TO STREETS AND DIRT LOTS OFF SCHOOL PROPERTY

CJ was a 14-year-old freshman at Betty H. Fairfax High School .The school is located on 59^th avenue just south of Baseline.  CJ was seriously injured jaywalking across 59^th avenue adjacent to a dirt lot across the street from the school. He was walking from home to school.  There was no crosswalk light or safety signs where he crossed. There was an entrance to the school where parents could drive into the parking lot and drop students off but many choose to drop their kids off in the dirt lot across the street from the school to avoid the line of cars trying to get into the school parking lot This created vehicular congestion.  Students regularly jaywalked from this lot to school and the school was aware of this.

CJ's father sued the school district alleging negligence , gross negligence and premises liability in the district's failure to warn students of the danger of jaywalking in this location and failing to pursue safer options for students crossing such as petitioning the city to install a crosswalk or signs.  The trial court denied the district's motion for summary judgment based upon the claim it owed CJ no duty because at the time of his injury he was not within the school's custody and control.  The Arizona Court of Appeals denied the defendant's petition for special action relief. The Arizona Supreme Court granted defendant's petition for review and vacated the court of appeals decision and reversed and remanded the trial court's ruling with instructions.

The school-student relationship is a special relationship which places a duty upon the school to protect students from unreasonable risks of harm when the students are within the school's custody and control usually “bounded by geography and time.” In the “rare case” the school may have a duty to students when they are no longer within the school's custody and control provided the risk of harm arises when the student is within the school's custody and control. Examples include an active shooter in the neighborhood or tornado that could harm students leaving school. 

The court recognized it does not generally consider facts in determining the existence of a duty but found it appropriate to consider the uncontroverted facts here to determine whether the risk of harm arose while CJ was within the custody and control of the school (but not to determine whether there was an unreasonably dangerous condition). 

The court attempted to distinguish the recent supreme court case of Dinsmoor v. City of Phoenix, 251 Ariz. 370 (2021) where the court held that schools have a duty to provide “a reasonably safe means of ingress and egress” to school.  Here the court found that CJ had left the school the day before, and while outside the control and custody of the school was walking to school the next day when he was injured on 59^th avenue, a street that was not on school grounds. The school “had no ability to install crosswalks, signs or other safety features. . . and did not require or suggest that students access the school by crossing the street from the dirt lot.” Similarly, the school did not own the lot where parents dropped off students and had no control over the congestion that created on 59^th avenue. Conversely, the school did provide multiple places to enter and exit the school, while CJ chose to instead engage in the dangerous activity of jaywalking on a congested street.