In response to a lawsuit filed by parents, the Collinsville School District denies having knowledge about the inappropriate conduct of a former middle school student until several female students reported that they were sexually assaulted by their classmate.
Collinsville Community Unit School District #10 district answered the complaint on Sept. 13 through attorney Adam Henningsen of Tueth Keeney Cooper Mohan & Jackstadt PC in Edwardsville.
The district denied liability and argued in its affirmative defenses that it is immune under the Tort Immunity Act.
“[N]either the defendant nor its employees who supervise activities on the defendant’s property are liable for a plaintiff’s injuries unless the defendant or its employees are guilty of willful and wanton conduct proximately causing such injuries,” the answer states.
The defendant claims neither it nor its employees had prior knowledge about student M.J.H.’s alleged conduct toward the plaintiffs until the conduct was reported.
“For further answer, and as an affirmative defense, the defendant states that it is not vicariously liable for any intentional torts of third parties, including another student. Defendant and its employees cannot be charged with the duty of anticipating and guarding against the unanticipated misconduct of other children,” the answer states.
The students’ parents replied to the school district’s affirmative defenses on Oct. 1 through attorney Ryan Mahoney of Cates Mahoney LLC in Swansea.
They deny each and every affirmative defense alleged by the school district.
K.S. and T.S. , as next of friends of Jane Doe 1, a minor, P.R. and T.R., as next of friends of Jane Doe 2, a minor and K.S., as next of friend of Jane Doe 3, a minor, filed a complaint Nov. 20 in the Madison County Circuit Court against the Collinsville Community Unit School District #10 and Wendy Valenti, as next of friend of M.J.H., a male minor. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 15.
According to the complaint, basketball tryouts were being conducted at Collinsville Middle School on Oct. 11, 2017. At the same time, M.J.H. was wandering the cafeteria and hallways unsupervised. Jane Doe 1, who was 13 years old and in eighth grade at the time, was leaving the school gym after tryouts when M.J.H. allegedly confronted her, pulled her into a nearby bathroom and forced her into a handicapped bathroom stall. M.J.H. is accused of forcing Jane Doe 1 to the ground, forcefully putting his penis in her mouth and ejaculating on her.
Then on Dec. 19, 2017, Jane Doe 2, who was 14 years old and in eighth grade at the time, left the school gym during a basketball game after regular school hours to get a soda out of the vending machine. M.J.H. allegedly approached her, grabbed the soda out of her hand and took off running. Jane Doe 2 chased him to retrieve her soda. She followed M.J.H. to the band room, where he allegedly forced her into a closet and placed his hands on her thighs and chest. Jane Doe 2 was able to escape and notified the school resource officer of what M.J.H. had done, the suit states. M.J.H. was allegedly suspended for one week for his actions.
In mid-March 2018, Jane Doe 3, who was 14 years old and in 8th grade at the time, rode the same bus as M.J.H. to and from school. Jane Doe 3 claims M.J.H. sat next to her and attempted to force her to place her hand down his pants and touch his genitalia. He allegedly threatened that he would spread rumors around school about her if she refused. Jane Doe 3 refused the sexual advances.
The suit states that the female students did not grant M.J.H. consent to touch or harm them, nor did they have the capacity to consent due to their minor statuses.
The plaintiffs allege that as Jane Does 1 and 2 were being sexually assaulted, school personnel were present and took no actions to prevent the assault and to ensure female students were supervised as they left the school gym and were on the bus.
As a result of the alleged assaults, the students suffered great bodily injury, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, PTSD, depression, embarrassment and humiliation.
The plaintiffs claim that the school district had knowledge of M.J.H.'s prior inappropriate, offensive sexual acts towards female students and knew that he could cause injury to female students if left unsupervised. The plaintiffs allege the school failed to provide the constant supervision throughout the school day that M.J.H. required.
The school district is also accused of failing to provide for the physical safety of the students, failing to maintain discipline for the safety of students in the absence of their parents or guardians, , failing to supervise M.J.H. at all times, failing to follow mandatory policies and procedures to supervise students to protect them from harm, failing to prevent students from traversing the school unattended and failing to ensure school personnel were present.
The defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 1. They argued that they are immune under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act and that the plaintiffs’ claims are time barred.
The school district argued that only the Board of Education would legally sue or be sued and that the complaint failed to show the defendants were willful and wanton in breaching a duty owed to the plaintiffs.
“Plaintiffs’ amended complaint also incorrectly implies that the defendant had a duty of anticipating and guarding against the unanticipated criminal acts of a third party,” the motion stated.
Madison County Circuit Judge Sarah Smith denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on July 19.
A jury trial has been set for Nov. 14, 2022.
Madison County Circuit Court case number 20-L-1664