Massachusetts Federal District Court Weighs in on the Existence of a Duty of Reasonable Care Between a Public School and a Student at Foreseeable Risk of Suicide

Massachusetts courts have not hesitated to recognize that public schools owe certain duties to their students. On July 1, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a decision in Doe v. City of Northampton, No. 23-10358-MGM, adopting a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation relative to a Defendant City’s motion to dismiss and concluding that public schools owe a duty of care to a minor child who is at foreseeable risk of suicide.

This lawsuit arose out of the tragic suicide of a sixteen-year-old student enrolled in Northampton High School on January 30, 2020, which was allegedly the result of bullying and harassment. The Plaintiff parent sued the City of Northampton (“City”).[1] Among the Plaintiff’s allegations was a count for wrongful death under Massachusetts law (Count VIII). The City moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim. The District Court referred the motion to dismiss to a United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation. On April 15, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a report. Regarding the wrongful death claim, the magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny the City’s motion. The City then objected.

Regarding the wrongful death claim the City raised three objections: (1) failure to present the claim to the City before filing suit, as required by the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (the “MTCA”); (2) Massachusetts law does not recognize a duty of care between a student and a high school as alleged; and (3) the City is immune based on sovereign immunity. In its review the court used the applicable standard on a motion to dismiss – whether the complaint alleges sufficient facts that, if accepted as true, state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Applying this standard, the Court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny the motion to dismiss the wrongful death count.

After finding that the acts alleged were sufficient to meet the presentment requirement and that an alleged safety plan entered into by the school were enough to find an exception to the specific reservation in the MTCA of sovereign immunity, the ruling turned to the City’s second objection. The Court noted that its application of Massachusetts state law requires using rules of substantive law announced by the state’s highest judicial authority or, on questions which that court has not addressed, making an informed prophecy of what that court would do in the same situation. Here, the magistrate judge relied on the closest analogous precedent, Nguyen v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 96 N.E.3d 128 (Mass. 2018), which involved the suicide of a twenty-five year old graduate student. In Nguyen, the Supreme Judicial Court held that a university may be liable in certain circumstances when a student commits suicide. The Federal court concluded that the logic articulated in Nguyen applies with equal force to public schools and their students who are at foreseeable risk of suicide. As described in Nguyen, this duty exists when:

A student has attempted suicide while enrolled at the university or recently before matriculation, or has stated plans or intentions to commit suicide, in these circumstances suicide is sufficiently foreseeable as the law has defined the term, even for university non-clinicians without medical training.

The district judge noted that Nguyen recognized this duty even though the student was older than a high school student, who typically is between the ages of fourteen and eighteen, leading to heightened concerns regarding “immaturity and a need for protection.” The Court concluded that under Massachusetts law a public school owes a duty of reasonable care to a minor child when the school has actual knowledge of a previous suicide attempt, or when the school has actual knowledge that the student has stated plans or intentions to commit suicide, because in these circumstances a second suicide attempt is foreseeable.

The Court then analyzed the facts alleged in the complaint. The complaint asserted that the school district was aware that the student had previously attempted suicide in May 2019 and that this suicide attempt occurred while the student was enrolled at school and resulted in hospitalization. The complaint also alleged that the school district was aware of a subsequent investigation by DCF into the suicide attempt, as well as further expressions of suicidal intent in the fall of 2019. The Court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations and denied the motion to dismiss the wrongful death claim.

Although this decision only addresses allegations in a complaint and is not a final judgment in the case, it articulates circumstances which may establish a duty of care owed by a public school to a student who is at foreseeable risk of suicide.

If you have any questions about the content of this update, please contact us. We are pleased to assist School Districts with all issues related to student matters, including bullying and harassment and the protection of students.

This update is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.

[1]Under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G.L. chapter 258, the “public employer” who may be sued for the actions of municipal school district employees is the municipality.