Liability for Suicide When Student Is Upset by Misconduct Investigation, and Resulting "Community Pressure"

In a decision June 20 in Bruno v. Mills, R.I. Superior Court Judge Richard Licht affirmed a verdict in favor of plaintiff, whose 15-year-old son Nathan committed suicide as a result of an investigation at school. The investigation started with the son's prank calls to a teacher (Mr. Moniz) and then led into an attempt to pressure the son into disclosing the names of two accomplices. The opinion is over 26,000 words long, so here's just a very short excerpt. I'm particularly interested in what this means more generally for investigations, whether at high schools, in college, or even in law schools—for instance, investigations into alleged sexual misconduct, racist comments, plagiarism, other cheating, and more:

[W]hether sufficient evidence was presented that Mr. Moniz breached a standard of care as to Nathan in large part depends on the substance of Dr. Leonard's testimony…. Dr. Leonard adequately explained the duties and conduct expected of school personnel and addressed how Mr. Moniz's specific conduct constituted a breach thereof.

To start, Dr. Leonard explained that when a student is subject to a criminal investigation involving a school educator, the standard of care owed by school personnel includes informing the student's at-school support system and parents of all developments and limiting discussion among other students to prevent interference with the police investigation. Even though Mr. Moniz was neither Nathan's coach nor his gym teacher, Dr. Leonard still found Mr. Moniz to have breached a standard of care as to Nathan because, despite handing off the prank texts/calls situation to the Jamestown Police, Mr. Moniz continued to pursue his own investigation into Nathan.

To start, Dr. Leonard found that Mr. Moniz ran afoul of his duty to keep the criminal investigation away from the student body by meeting with the football team on February 6, 2018 in which he dangled his resignation as football coach over the players' heads unless Nathan's two coconspirators were identified. Dr. Leonard also found that Mr. Moniz ran afoul of his duty as a member of the school's staff to apprise Plaintiff of various developments involving his child, including his request that Nathan be switched from his gym class for the next trimester, and his ongoing discussions with Mr. Amaral about meeting with Nathan on February 6, 2018 to elicit further information on who else was involved.

Although Mr. Moniz did not directly interact with Nathan in engaging in this conduct, Dr. Leonard noted that Mr. Moniz knew as an educator the importance of peer support but nonetheless engaged in conduct that stripped Nathan of his support system and made him feel cornered and alone. Moreover, Mr. Moniz's actions in threatening to quit absent the other involved players coming forward inappropriately subjected Nathan to a great deal of community pressure as shown by several football players feeling the need to visit him at his home on the afternoon of February 6, 2018 to communicate what Mr. Moniz had threatened at the meeting earlier that day.

Again, while not communicated directly to Nathan, Dr. Leonard found Mr. Moniz's tactic of putting Nathan "on the clock" to be highly inappropriate in that it left Nathan feeling that resolve was not possible absent him turning on those close to him. ["On the clock" appears to refer to this: "Plaintiff argues that Mr. Moniz breached his duty to Nathan as an educator by 'putting him on the clock' through a series of conduct aimed at manipulating Nathan, either directly or through those around him, to divulge the names of the other two football players involved in the prank texts/calls situation."] …

Given the facts Dr. Leonard relied upon and her evaluation of these facts through the scope of her expertise, there was ample evidence upon which the jury could find that Mr. Moniz did indeed owe a duty to Nathan and that such a duty was breached by way of Mr. Moniz's handling of the prank texts/calls situation….

Even with adult students, an investigation can be extremely traumatic, raising the prospect of "community pressure," family shame, and professional ruin. Some of the investigations will inevitably involve other students learning of the matter during the investigation, but even when that doesn't happen, the target may feel extremely upset, especially if the target had some emotional difficulties at the outset. And I take it that different experts will have different views of what the standard of care is for such investigations. I'm curious what educational institutions, again whether schools, universities, or law schools, can feel legally safe doing in such situations.