Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified School District
California Court of Appeal
4 Cal. App. 4th 787 (1992)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Johnson High School (school) was a small public high school in the Los Angeles Unified School District (district) (defendant) that served students who had been referred there from other schools for behavior problems. The school prohibited its students from displaying signs of gang affiliation and confiscated gang-related items almost daily. Moreover, the school was located in a neighborhood with a high level of gang activity. Ernest Brownell (plaintiff) was a student at the school who had never had any gang affiliation. Shortly after being dismissed at the end of one school day, Brownell was confronted by members of a gang. The gang members mistakenly believed Brownell to be a member of a rival gang and shot and injured Brownell. School officials had not visually swept the area surrounding the school for gang members before dismissing students for the day. Prior to Brownell’s injury, the school had not experienced a shooting that school year. Brownell sued the district, alleging that the school’s breach of its duty of care to supervise students caused his injury. A jury awarded damages to Brownell. The district appealed, arguing that it did not breach any duty of care it owed to Brownell.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boren, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

