Appeals Court Affirms $5M School Assault Verdict

A California appellate court has largely upheld a $5 million jury verdict holding the Coronado Unified School District responsible for the sexual assault of a minor student by a basketball coach, while ordering a limited retrial to determine whether fault should be apportioned to the student’s parents. The decision stems from a civil action brought on behalf of a student identified as Jane Doe, who alleged that Jordan Bucklew, an assistant basketball coach, sexually assaulted her while she was a minor.

The jury originally found that the school district failed in its duty to protect Doe, resulting in significant emotional and psychological harm. The verdict included damages tied to trauma-related conditions that Doe testified continued to affect her daily life. Bucklew later pleaded guilty to a criminal charge involving unlawful sexual contact with a minor more than three years younger, a fact that provided a critical backdrop to the civil litigation.

Appellate Court’s Ruling

In a detailed 49-page opinion, the three-justice panel of the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District rejected most of the school district’s challenges to the verdict. The panel concluded that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions in a manner that would justify overturning the jury’s findings on liability or damages.

However, the appellate court determined that a new trial is required on a narrow issue: whether Doe’s parents bore some comparative fault for failing to act on warning signs before Bucklew’s arrest. The panel found there was sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether the parents should have intervened earlier, given their awareness of circumstances such as one-on-one training sessions, late returns home, and the temporary disabling of a phone tracking application.

Addressing the broader foreseeability of misconduct, the panel wrote that widespread public awareness of sexual abuse cases in schools and youth organizations imposes a duty of vigilance not only on institutions but also on parents. “As a result, an ordinarily reasonable and prudent parent must also have an awareness of the risks and a responsibility to keep these risks in mind when undertaking their affirmative legal duty to protect their children,” the panel stated.

Evidence and Trial Court Decisions

The school district raised multiple procedural and evidentiary objections on appeal, including challenges to testimony from a former team member who made similar allegations against Bucklew. The appellate court found that the district forfeited this argument by failing to renew objections at trial after an earlier motion to exclude the testimony was denied.

Other objections fared no better. The panel concluded that the district was not prejudiced by the trial court’s handling of evidence related to Bucklew’s prior misdemeanor conviction, as the jury ultimately did not see that evidence. Similarly, testimony regarding Bucklew’s earlier volunteer role at the school was deemed probative because it addressed whether proper hiring and oversight procedures were followed before he became an assistant coach.

The court also rejected claims that jury instructions favored the plaintiff. According to the opinion, the instructions given accurately reflected the elements of the claims, while the district’s proposed alternatives were characterized as argumentative and overly focused on the defense’s theory of the case.

Role of Expert Testimony

Expert testimony played a significant role in the trial and subsequent appeal. The district argued that Doe’s expert on hiring and supervision standards lacked relevant experience because she had not worked directly in a school setting. The appellate court disagreed, noting that the expert’s consulting firm advises school human resources departments on hiring, training, retention, and supervision practices.

The district also challenged the testimony of Doe’s psychology expert, contending that the defense was prejudiced by delayed access to raw testing data. The panel found no reversible error, emphasizing that the defense ultimately received the data during trial and was able to question its own expert on the materials.

In assessing the damages award, the court highlighted evidence that Doe’s treating psychologist diagnosed her with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, along with testimony describing ongoing anxiety and fear following the assault. The panel concluded that the district failed to properly account for this evidence when arguing that the damages were excessive.

Implications and Next Steps

The appellate decision underscores the expansive scope of institutional liability for student safety while also clarifying that comparative fault principles may extend to parents under certain circumstances. By ordering a retrial limited to apportionment of fault, the court left intact the jury’s findings on liability and damages against the school district, subject only to potential adjustment based on parental responsibility.

The ruling may influence how school districts, parents, and youth organizations evaluate risk management and supervision practices. It also reinforces the importance of timely objections and comprehensive factual presentations on appeal, as several of the district’s arguments were rejected due to procedural forfeiture or inadequate briefing.

The case now returns to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion, where a jury will determine whether, and to what extent, Doe’s parents share responsibility for the circumstances leading to the abuse.

Case Details

Case Name: Doe v. Coronado Unified School District
Court Name: (Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District)
Case Number: D084342
Plaintiff Attorney(s): Law Offices of Brandon M. Smith
Defense Attorney(s): Winet Patrick Gayer Creighton & Hanes