May 2, 2008
Student's '2 kill list' ends up in a lawsuit

By ANDREW BERGH
Special to the Journal

The slayings last year at Virginia Tech were another tragic reminder that the Columbine massacre was no aberration.

With campus violence an ever-present risk, school officials must be increasingly vigilant. But in a Grant County case, a school district that swiftly investigated and responded to an alleged “hit list” by one of its high school students still wound up in court as a defendant.

With barely 2,500 inhabitants, the town of Warden, situated between Moses Lake and Othello, is an unlikely hotbed of controversy.

The hullabaloo innocently began when a school bus driver discovered a backpack left behind on the bus. Looking through the backpack for the owner's name, he found a handwritten list of names with the words “2 kill list” at the top. The driver dutifully gave the list and backpack to the Warden High School principal, who promptly interviewed the student (called only “K.S.” in court documents).

K.S. admitted writing the list while on the phone with a friend (referenced in court documents as “S.M.”). She said they never intended to harm anyone on the list, and that they created it because they were bored.

Losing no momentum, the principal and the police chief interviewed S.M. that same afternoon.

The student admitted that he and K.S. had compiled the list over the phone, but he also said it was a “joke” and that they didn't actually intend to harm anyone. There was seemingly an element of truth to his statement because the 128 names on the list included not only students and teachers, but also famous figures like “Shania Twain,” “big bird,” “goerge [sic] bush,” “bill clinton,” “al gore,” “Martha Stewart,” “opra [sic],” and “garth brooks.”

Although the police chief thought S.M. posed no threat, the school district immediately expelled him for three days on an emergency basis and then, just hours later, converted it to a 45-day suspension. (It's unclear whether K.S. suffered any like consequences.) Within five days of finding the list, the school district gave notice to all parents and staff that a “threatening reference” had been made, that the involved student had been suspended, and that it had a “zero tolerance policy” for threats made on school grounds.

As a precondition to returning to school, S.M. had to undergo an extensive mental health examination. Soon after the evaluating psychiatrist recommended his return, the district admitted S.M. back into school.

This is when the plot thickened.

The first name on the “2 kill list” was “billy,” an apparent reference to one of S.M.'s classmates.

Billy's parents wanted S.M. to be suspended for the rest of the school year, as they thought his presence would harm their son. Instead, the school board admitted S.M. without notifying the parents. This upset the parents, who refused to let Billy return to school as long as S.M. was there.

Discussions then followed between the school district and the parents. Although they agreed to an “alternative educational plan” allowing Billy to do his studies at home, the district refused to assign a full-time tutor to him. On top of that, a counselor retained by the parents later diagnosed Billy with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Against this background, the parents sued the school district for negligence in Grant County Superior Court. The defendant responded by moving for summary judgment, arguing the suit should be dismissed because it had breached no legal duty to Billy. Siding with the district, the trial court expelled the parents and their claims in April 2007.

In the ensuing appeal, the parents contended that the school district had acted negligently by, among other things, not suspending S.M. for the rest of the school year. (They also said the defendant gave late notice of the “2 kill list,” should not have accepted the psychiatric report, and failed to notify them ahead of time that S.M. would be returning to school.)

But earlier this year, a Washington appeals court permanently suspended the plaintiffs' suit.

Under Washington law, a school district must protect its students from reasonably anticipated dangers. This duty of care, said the court, only extends to foreseeable risks of harm. Applying these principles, the court ultimately affirmed the dismissal of the parents' claims.

First of all, the appeals court said the school district was under no obligation to keep S.M. out of school for the remainder of the year “just to accommodate” the parents, especially when they hadn't shown Billy would be harmed by S.M.'s presence. Second, the court said the defendant was also legally obligated to consider S.M.'s educational needs and that, consistent with state law and its own policies, the district had reasonably relied on the psychiatric report. And third, the court said it wasn't foreseeable that the defendant's actions would result in Billy's PTSD.

So who learned what lesson? Hard to say.

If K.S. and S.M. remain friends, however, I'd bet my bottom buck their common list-making days are over.