Government Code 815.2 school liability claims rest on a foundational principle of California public entity law. A school district, like any other public entity, can be held liable for injuries proximately caused by the negligent acts or omissions of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to the same extent a private employer would be liable under ordinary respondeat superior principles.
815.2
The Government Code section behind the claim
$17.5M
Result in the underlying school emergency case
California Government Code section 815.2 provides that a public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee individually. This provision functions as the primary vehicle through which a school district's liability is established when the underlying negligent conduct was committed by an individual employee, such as a teacher, administrator, coach, or campus security staff member, rather than arising from a physical defect in school property. The section also specifies that the public entity is not liable if the employee is immune, though most claims of ordinary negligence against school employees do not implicate such immunities.
A critical element of any section 815.2 claim is establishing that the employee's negligent act or omission occurred within the scope of employment. In the school context, this is typically straightforward when the conduct involves routine job responsibilities, supervising students during recess, responding to a medical emergency on campus, or following established safety protocols. Because section 815.2 liability is derivative of the employee's own potential individual liability, a plaintiff must still prove that the employee owed a duty of care, breached it, and that the breach proximately caused the injury. In an inadequate emergency medical response, that means establishing the standard of care a reasonably prepared and trained employee should have met and demonstrating how the actual conduct fell short.
A district's own training policies, and admissions from supervisory staff about what training and equipment should have been in place, can establish both the applicable standard of care and the specific ways an employee's conduct fell short given the resources actually available.
Because liability is derivative, the district is not liable if the individual employee is immune, so counsel should confirm that ordinary negligence in supervision or emergency response does not trigger an applicable immunity.
Section 815.2 claims focus on employee conduct, while a dangerous condition claim under section 835 focuses on a physical defect in the property, and both theories can be pursued together when the facts support them.
In litigation over a child's cardiac arrest during recess, the district's vicarious liability rested on employee conduct combined with district-level admissions.
The case behind this page
How employee conduct and district admissions combined to support a $17.5 million result.
Read the full caseRelated proof
How the response, not the underlying event, is proven to have caused the injury.
How causation is provenRelated breakdowns from this case and our government liability practice.
We litigate school and public entity claims as counsel or co-counsel and pay statutory referral fees.
Refer a caseSection 815.2 establishes that a public entity, including a school district, is liable for injuries proximately caused by an employee's negligent act or omission within the scope of employment, to the same extent a private employer would be liable.
No, section 815.2 specifies that a public entity is not liable if the individual employee is immune from liability, though most ordinary negligence claims involving supervision or emergency response do not implicate such immunities.
Section 815.2 claims focus on an employee's negligent conduct, while section 835 dangerous condition claims focus on a physical defect or hazardous condition of the public entity's property itself, though both theories can be pursued together when supported by the facts.
