Lee v. Pine Bluff School District, No. 05-2011 (8th Cir. Jan. 8, 2007)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled that an Arkansas school district did not violate the due process rights of a student who died soon after returning from a school band trip by failing to seek medical attention for him. The court also ruled that the band director did not violate the student’s due process rights based on a constitutional "duty to protect." Courtney Fisher, a student at Jack Robey Junior High School, died after a band trip to Atlanta, Georgia. His mother, Sharon Lee, had completed the district’s consent form, which included a "medical form" and "emergency contact person." Ms. Lee checked off the box that stated her child had no physical problems that would prohibit exercise and signed a statement giving the band director permission to seek professional medical care if Courtney suffered an injury. In Atlanta, Courtney became extremely ill and was confined to his hotel room for the duration of the trip. At no time did the band director or any chaperone seek medical attention or contact Courtney’s emergency contact. When the band returned home, Courtney was admitted to a hospital, where he suffered fatal cardiac arrest. His death was attributed to undiagnosed diabetes. Ms. Lee sued Pine Bluff School District and the band director, bringing several state law negligence claims, as well as a federal claim under Section 1983 alleging violation of Courtney’s constitutional rights. Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to sue a public official who, acting under color of state law, violates rights secured by the federal constitution or statutes. This claim was based on the assertion that when Ms. Lee signed the consent form, school officials assumed "care, custody, and control" of Courtney and had a duty to attend to his medical needs. The suit alleged the officials were "deliberately indifferent" to his medical needs and "willfully and deliberately" failed to provide adequate care. The federal court dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction over the state law claims on the ground that, whatever common law torts may have occurred, they did not rise to the level of constitutional violations merely because the actor was a public employee.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit began its analysis of Ms. Lee’s claim against the district by pointing out that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is not a "font of tort law." The court cited DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), in which the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that "neither the text nor the history of the Clause supports the proposition that the State must ‘guarantee certain minimal levels of safety and security.’" However, DeShaney had carved out a narrow exception in "limited circumstances" when the state restrains an individual’s liberty "through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint." Under such circumstances, the Due Process Clause imposes a duty on the state "to assume some responsibility for [the individual’s] safety and general well-being, because the State has rendered the person unable to care for himself." Nonetheless, the Eighth Circuit found the district court properly dismissed Ms. Lee’s claim without examining the possible application of this DeShaney exception, because Ms. Lee failed to allege any school district policy or custom that caused the alleged violation. It is well-settled law, the appeals court noted, that a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 "unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort" or "widespread unconstitutional practices" constitute a "custom or usage with the force of law."
Turning to the band director’s personal liability under § 1983, the court found that Ms. Lee failed to allege facts satisfying the DeShaney exception that would impose a constitutional duty on a school official to attend to the medical needs of a student. Her allegations did not satisfy the stringent requirements for substantive due process liability, because Courtney’s participation in the field trip was voluntary, which certainly did not impose state restraint on his liberty "through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint." The court reasoned that, since several circuits have previously concluded "that even mandatory school attendance generally does not give rise to a constitutional duty of care that could trigger liability based on substantive due process, it is not surprising that the weight of authority also holds that school officials have no such duty with respect to students participating in voluntary school-related activities that are not required by state law."
Lee v. Pine Bluff School District, No. 05-2011 (8th Cir. Jan. 8, 2007)
[Full opinion]