Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tort- School officials dodge suit over adult’s assault of minor child

Virginia Lawyers Weekly//May 4, 2026//

Depositphotos

Depositphotos

Tort- School officials dodge suit over adult’s assault of minor child

Virginia Lawyers Weekly//May 4, 2026//

Listen to this article

Although a school bus assistant bit a minor child and struck him in the head, the court dismissed his guardian’s suit alleging that school board members were grossly negligent by not training the assistant and in failing to share information about the child’s behavioral issues. The assistant’s actions were not reasonably foreseeable.

 Background                              

G.H., by his guardian and next friend Janet Rance, appeals the circuit court’s judgment sustaining Tania Sotomayor, Sean F. Barnes, Chris Sprouse and Euodias Falcon Knight III’s demurrer to his second amended complaint. He argues the circuit court erred in holding that his claims for gross negligence and a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were legally insufficient.

Analysis

G.H. asserted that the employees were grossly negligent and violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights because a bus driver assistant, Adela Lucia, was not properly trained and the employees failed to share information pertaining to G.H.’s specific conditions with Avila or the bus driver.

But the operative complaint is devoid of allegations suggesting that Avila had a history of violent criminal behavior or child abuse. Absent allegations of this kind, Avila’s conduct in striking and biting  G.H. could not have been reasonably foreseeable. Since Avila’s actions were not reasonably foreseeable, the employees were under no duty of care to protect G.H. from Avila.

Likewise, since the employees were not aware of any history of violent acts by Avila, they had no reason to know that Avila would respond to G.H.’s misbehavior in this manner. When the employees assigned Avila to be G.H.’s bus driver assistant, they did not “disregard[] a known or obvious consequence” of doing so. Without “actual notice” that Avila would assault G.H. in this manner, the employees were not deliberately indifferent to G.H.’s Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Affirmed.

G.H. v. Sotomayor, Record No. 0045-25-1, April 21, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Callins). From the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach (Farashahi). Kevin E. Martingayle (Jerrell R. Johnson; Bischoff Martingayle, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Melissa Y. York (Jeremy D. Capps; Brian P. Ettari; Harman, Claytor, Corrigan & Wellman, on brief), for appellees. VLW 026-7-154. 7 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-7-154
Virginia Lawyers Weekly

 

Legal Tech

See All Legal Tech News

Verdicts & Settlements

See All Verdicts & Settlements

Opinion Digests

See All Digests