YORK – The mothers of a minor child who they alleged had suffered a sexual assault at the hands of an older student in the restroom of his elementary school stand by their claims and reject an argument from York School District that they had made a false report that hindered the resulting investigation.
Jane Doe and Jane Roe (individually and as parents and natural guardians of John Doe, a minor) first filed suit in the York County Court of Common Pleas on March 25 versus the School District of York. All parties are of York.
“Plaintiffs are the adoptive mothers and natural guardians of John Doe, a minor. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit using pseudonyms in order to protect their privacy and because of the fear of further psychological injury if their names were publicly disclosed, as this lawsuit involves facts of the utmost intimacy regarding the sexual assault/rape of a child. Plaintiffs’ true identities are known to defendants and their counsel,” the suit stated.
“At all material times, defendant, owned and operated Alexander D. Goode Elementary School, located at 251 North Broad St., York, PA 17403. Defendant had in place policies regarding student safety while on school property. Defendant operated, managed, staffed, organized, maintained, supervised and/or controlled the operations and agents at Alexander D. Goode Elementary School.”
The suit added the defendant hired, employed, staffed, retained, trained, supervised, managed, contracted, and/or directed certain persons to care for, teach, watch and/or supervise the students at Alexander D. Goode Elementary School – and at all material times, John Doe was under the supervision, care, guidance and instruction of the staff, employees and administration of defendant.
“On or about May 19, 2022, while attending Alexander D. Goode Elementary School, John Doe was sexually assaulted/raped by a bigger student in the classroom restroom. As a result of the sexual assault/rape, John Doe has and will continue to have serious and permanent physical, psychological and emotional injuries,” the suit said.
The suit maintained that the District was negligent in failing to supervise their employees with students in their care at Alexander D. Goode Elementary School, failing to adequately supervise the students, failing to adequately supervise the restrooms at Alexander D. Goode Elementary School and failing to prevent the assailant from entering restroom stall when John Doe already occupied it, among other such instances of negligence.
On April 25, the District answered the case, flatly denied that the plaintiffs’ child had ever been the victim of a sexual assault on its property and provided new matter defenses on its own behalf – instead, countering that the plaintiffs had allegedly made a false report with respect to this incident.
“Plaintiffs’ claims, in whole or in part, are barred by governmental immunity codified in the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. The exception to governmental immunity found at 42 Pa.C.S. Section 8542(b)(9) does not apply in this case inasmuch as the minor child was not subjected to sexual abuse, assault and/or rape. The minor child was not subjected to any of the offenses enumerated under 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5551(7). Plaintiffs’ claims against the District are barred as a matter of law by 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5522 in that plaintiffs failed to provide the requisite notice of their intent to bring an action against the District within six months of the incident that allegedly transpired on May 19, 2022,” per that new matter.
“Plaintiffs falsely reported to the District that John Doe allegedly was assaulted by a fellow student in his class, when they knew the individual whom they identified actually was not the alleged assailant. Plaintiffs’ false report hindered the District’s ability to conduct a full, comprehensive investigation of the alleged incident. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by their own contributory negligence. The District did not breach any duty it may have owed to plaintiffs under the circumstances. Plaintiffs never made any prior complaints of harassment, bullying, or abuse of John Doe by the student they ultimately identified as John Doe’s assailant, and thus the District was not on notice of any alleged prior misconduct to which John Doe may have been subjected by the alleged assailant.”
UPDATE
In a May 9 reply to the new matter, the plaintiffs denied it in its entirety, including the District’s assertion that they made a false report.
“The averments of these paragraphs are conclusions of law to which no response is required and the same are therefore denied. To the extent that an answer is required, the averments of this paragraph are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e),” the reply stated.
For one count of negligence, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of the arbitration limits, together with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law.
The plaintiffs are represented by Brad K. Muller of Katherman Briggs & Greenberg, in York.
The defendants are represented by Christopher J. Conrad of Marshall Dennehey, in Camp Hill.
York County Court of Common Pleas case 2024-SU-000895
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com