Verdictly
Verdict-Defense
Pima County • 2013

Tucson Judge Dismisses School Negligence Case, Awards Defendant $3,489

A student was riding her bicycle at an intersection after school when she was struck by a vehicle. The student suffered injuries. The student's family sued the school, alleging negligence for failing to provide a crossing guard. The school argued it had no duty to provide a crossing guard for off-campus travel. The court ruled in favor of the school.

Case Information Updated: October 2025

Back to cases
Other Injury
Pedestrian
Motor Vehicle Negligence

Case Outcome

Outcome
Verdict-Defense
Amount
$3,489
County
Pima County, AZ
Resolved
2013

Injury & Accident Details

Injury Type
Other
Accident Type
Pedestrian
Case Type
Motor Vehicle Negligence

Settlement Context

This verdict-defense of $3,489 is near the median of Undisclosed for other cases resolved by verdict-defense. The typical range is Undisclosed to $9,827, based on 107 cases in our database.

Case Overview

In October 2003, an eleven-year-old fifth-grade student at a charter school in Tucson, Arizona, was struck by a motor vehicle while riding a bicycle across an intersection after school. The incident occurred at the intersection of Alvernon and Speedway, where the school, Basis School, Inc., did not provide a school crossing guard, unlike other elementary schools in the Tucson Unified School District. The plaintiff suffered significant injuries as a result of the collision.

In July 2011, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Basis School, Inc., in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in Pima County. The plaintiff alleged the school was negligent for failing to provide a crossing guard, breaching its duty to prevent foreseeable harm, and creating an unreasonable risk of harm. The defendant denied any negligence and filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence it breached a cognizable duty to the student, nor was its conduct a proximate cause of the accident. The defendant also asserted that no state rule required it to provide crossing guards for off-campus travel and that parents were expressly informed such services were not offered.

In February 2013, the court entered judgment in favor of Basis School, Inc., finding the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The case was dismissed with prejudice, and the defendant was awarded costs totaling $3,489.55 plus interest.

Understanding This Case

  • This case went to trial and resulted in a jury verdict. Verdicts can yield higher awards but carry the risk of receiving nothing if the jury rules against the plaintiff.
  • This case was resolved in Pima County, Arizona. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
  • Resolved in 2013, this case reflects the legal and economic conditions of that period, including medical costs, insurance practices, and jury award trends at the time.

VerdictlyTM Score

60
/100
Reasonably Fair

This outcome is within expected ranges

This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.

Curious about your case value?

Get a free case evaluation to understand what your motor vehicle accident case might be worth based on cases like this in Pima County.

Check Your Case Value

Similar cases you may find useful

Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.

Undisclosed
Verdict-Defense
Other Injury
Pedestrian
Motor Vehicle Negligence

A lawsuit stemmed from a motor vehicle and pedestrian collision. The plaintiff presented expert testimony related to life care planning and rehabilitation, indicating claims for long-term care and disability. The defendant countered with expert testimony from fields including psychology, neuropsychology, and orthopedic surgery. The parties reached a resolution, and the case was concluded with a stipulated dismissal in April 2019.

Dallas County • 2019
View full case
Undisclosed
Verdict-Defense
Other Injury
Other Accident
Motor Vehicle Negligence

The employer, Star*Tel Systems, appealed a decision by an administrative law judge in Kentucky. The judge had previously determined that an employee sustained a permanent and total disability following a work-related motor vehicle accident. The appeal challenged the judge's opinion, order, and award.

Dallas County • 2015
View full case
Undisclosed
Verdict-Defense
Other Injury
Rear-end

A civil lawsuit stemmed from a rear-end collision in Denver, Colorado. The defendant presented expert testimony from an individual specializing in orthopedic surgery. Specific details regarding the incident, the plaintiff's claims, or the ultimate resolution of the case were not available in the record.

Denver County • 2022
View full case
Undisclosed
Verdict-Defense
Other Injury
Other Accident
Motor Vehicle Negligence

A personal injury case arose from an auto accident. The plaintiff retained an expert in economics to assess damages. The defendant presented experts in emergency medicine, biomechanics, and accident reconstruction, suggesting disputes over the nature or cause of injuries. An occupational therapy expert also participated in the case. The matter proceeded to a trial, which concluded on December 9, 2016. Details regarding the verdict or any award were not specified in the record.

Larimer County • 2016
View full case
Undisclosed
Settlement
Other Injury
Other Accident
Motor Vehicle Negligence

A motor vehicle collision occurred in Mesa County, Colorado, involving a vehicle operated by the defendant and another car carrying the plaintiff as a passenger. The plaintiff alleged the incident caused permanent personal injuries, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and resulted in medical expenses and economic losses. The plaintiff filed a vehicular liability action in the Colorado District Court, Twenty-First Judicial District, County of Mesa, claiming the defendant's negligence. Allegations included failing to operate the vehicle prudently, maintain a proper lookout, obey traffic control devices, driving at an excessive speed, and failing to stop at a red light. The plaintiff sought damages for the alleged harm. In response, the defendant denied the allegations of negligence. The defendant also asserted affirmative defenses, including claims of failure to state a claim, culpable conduct, and failure to mitigate damages. The parties subsequently filed a notice with the court indicating that they had reached a settlement in the action.

Mesa County • 2017
View full case