The Third Circuit Court has ruled in favor of a Pennsylvania school district in a lawsuit brought by the family of a student who was assaulted on a school campus. The assault occurred in the 2012-2013 school year at Chester High School, which is within the boundaries of the defendant in the lawsuit, Chester Upland School District.
The victim was Alphonzo Green, a high school freshman at the time of the assault. Chester High had abolished the issuance of student identification cards, and was not requiring visitors to register at the office or wear a pass. A trespasser entered the campus on a day that is referred to as “National Fight Day” with the apparent object of assaulting several students. Green was one of these.
Green’s father, Alphonzo King, filed a lawsuit against the school district, citing their lax security policies as having caused the attack on his son. According to the complaint, Green’s civil rights had been violated and the district had fostered a dangerous condition when it did away with the ID card requirements. Thus, the complaint argued, Green’s due process was violated.
A district court decided in favor of the defendant, but King chose to appeal to a higher court. The three judge panel sided with the lower court, finding that the claim did not meet four criteria that would have proven the school district’s liability. Mainly, the judges relied upon whether or not the district’s decision not to provide student identification cards was an affirmative act that created a situation that was dangerous for the plaintiff. They concluded that the omission of ID cards did not constitute an affirmative act.
Moreover, the judges felt that the plaintiff couldn’t demonstrate how the physical assault was a “fairly direct” consequence of the school’s refusal to issue ID cards. The plaintiff could only succeed with this claim if he proved that the lack of student ID cards somehow provided the impetus for the physical assault. Arguing that the attack was the result of “random criminal conduct,” the judges decided that the district bore no liability in the incident.