Christensen v. Royal School District No. 160
Washington Supreme Court
124 P.3d 283 (2005)
A teacher employed by the District (defendant) engaged in a sexual relationship with Christensen (plaintiff), a thirteen-year-old female student. Christensen brought a negligence claim against the District for negligently hiring and supervising the teacher. The District claimed that Christensen had voluntarily participated in the sexual misconduct and that therefore she should be considered contributorily negligent. The trial court requested an answer to the certified question of whether a minor child can be held contributorily negligent for engaging in sexual misconduct with a school teacher.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Alexander, C.J.)
Dissent (Sanders, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 723,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 723,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.