Arizona Supreme Court Holds School Did Not Owe Student Duty of Care As He Crossed Street To Enter Campus.

Phoenix Union High Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Hon. Sinclair/Lucero, No. CV-24-0307-PR (July 15, 2025)

Arizona Supreme Court | July 15, 2025

By: Elizabeth B.N. Garcia

In Phoenix Union High Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Hon. Sinclair/Lucero, No. CV-24-0307-PR (July 15, 2025), the Arizona Supreme Court addressed whether a school owed a duty of care to a student who was struck by a car and injured while crossing a street to enter the school campus.

The high school the student, Lucero, attended was adjacent to a portion of 59th Avenue that had no crosswalks, school zone speed limit sign, other warning signs, or traffic lights.  The school was aware that students often jaywalked across that stretch of 59th Avenue to enter the school’s premises, and did nothing to stop the practice or warn parents or students that it was unsafe to do so.  Fourteen-year-old Lucero was struck and seriously injured while jaywalking across the street to enter the school premises.

After Lucero filed a lawsuit against the school district (the “District”), it moved for summary judgment on Lucero’s negligence, gross negligence, and premises liability claims, arguing it did not owe him any duty of care because he was not under the school’s custody and control at the time of the accident.  The trial court disagreed, and found that the District’s awareness that students were jaywalking—a practice which created a known, tangible risk of harm to those students—and possession of at least some control over whether to warn students of the danger, or pursue safer options for students’ ingress and egress from school premises.

After the Court of Appeals denied the District’s petition for special action relief, the Arizona Supreme Court granted review.  Affirming that duties based on special relationships are not limitless, and are generally bounded by geography and time, the Arizona supreme Court held a school “owed a duty to protect students when a known and tangible risk of harm endangers them while under the school’s custody and control.”  That duty most-often exists when the student is on campus, or participating in an off-campus school-sponsored event, but it can also exist if a risk arises while the student is in the school’s custody and control, even if the risk manifests in injury after the student leaves the school’s custody and control.

Consistent with its recent decision in Perez v. Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc., 564 P.3d 623, 628 ¶ 15 (Ariz. 2025), the Court considered case-specific-facts to determine when and where the alleged risk of harm to Lucero arose.  In this case, the district had no duty to control the street or the property Lucero had been on before jaywalking; had no authority to install crosswalks, signs and other safety features; and did not require or suggest that students access the school by jaywalking across the street. There was also no evidence that the district failed to provide alternative, reasonably safe means of ingress and egress, and there were other entrances Lucero could have used that did not create a tangible risk of harm to him.  Further, Lucero had left the school’s custody and control the day prior, had not returned to it at the time of the accident, and was still not under the school’s custody and control when he jaywalked and was struck.  The risk to Lucero arose when he chose to jaywalk, and travel to a school entry.  It thus did not arise within the scope of his special relationship with the school. As a result, the District did not owe Lucero a duty of care, warranting summary judgment on all his claims against the District.

Elizabeth B. N. Garcia focuses her practice in federal and state appellate matters. Liz joined JSH after gaining experience at a multi-state firm where she handled class action defense and other complex litigation. In addition to her class action experience, Liz handled breach of contract and other sophisticated commercial litigation for clients across industries. After law school, she worked for the Arizona Attorney General’s Office as an Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Appeals and was named the 2017 Emerging Star for the Solicitor General’s Office.

egarcia@jshfirm.com | 602.263.4486 | jshfirm.com/egarcia