Landmark New Jersey Supreme Court

On March 11, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a decision in Hornor v. Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education. The Court’s decision has laid the groundwork to allow survivors of sexual abuse inflicted by their teachers, or other school employees, to hold school districts accountable and liable for the egregious misconduct of their employees.

Summary of Facts

This case was brought to the New Jersey Supreme Court on appeal from four cases wherein the Plaintiffs alleged to have been sexually abused by New Jersey public school teachers.

In Hornor, the plaintiff filed suit alleging that his former science teacher who allegedly sexually abused him at age 15 in 1979 at Hutler’s home.  Hornor claimed that Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education (BOE) was vicariously liable for Hutler’s abuse, and that the BOE breached a fiduciary duty. The trial court denied the BOE’s motion to dismiss claims for vicarious liability and breach of fiduciary duty, but the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s ruling.

In Simpkins, three Plaintiffs alleged that an English and special education teacher sexually abused them during, and after, school hours. The plaintiffs also alleged that some of the abuse was inflicted on school property. The Plaintiffs in this case allege that the teacher exercised her authority and power as a teacher to facilitate the abuse. The trial court dismissed the vicarious liability claims, and the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

The New Jersey Supreme Court granted leave to appeal the decisions in all four cases and consolidated them for review.

These cases presented the Court with two questions:

1. Does N.J.S.A. 59:2-1.3(a)(1) of the Child Victims Act authorize vicarious liability for a public school district in response to a teacher’s sexual abuse of a student outside the scope of employment?
2. Does a public school district owe a fiduciary duty to a student?

The Court looked at three rules of law when reviewing and ruling on these cases.

1. N.J.S.A. 59:2-1.3(a)(1) of the Child Victims Act nullifies Tort Claim immunities for claims of sexual abuse caused by willful, wanton, or grossly negligent acts of public entities or employees.
2. Vicarious liability under the Tort Claims Act applies generally to acts within the scope of employment.
3. A fiduciary relationship arises when one party has a duty of loyalty and care to act for the benefit of another.

Vicarious liability is a legal responsibility imposed on institutions, organizations, businesses and other entities, for the actions of their employees. Certain legal acts such as the Tort Claims Act allow for immunity against liability under certain circumstances. For example, under the TCA, a public entity, or company, is not liable for the acts of a public employee, constituting a crime. The legislature acknowledged that exceptions to these protections are necessary in-order to protect private citizens. As a result, additional acts have been passed, such as the Child Victims Act, which nullifies the immunities against vicarious liability provided to entities under the TCA.  

The New Jersey Child Victims Act (CVA) enacted in December 2019 expanded the rights of child victims of sexual abuse under three existing statutes: the Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to :12-3; the Charitable Immunity Act (CIA), N.J.S.A. 2A:53-7 to -11; and the Child Sexual Abuse Act (CSAA), N.J.S.A. 2A:61B-1.

Generally, the CVA allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to pursue claims against both perpetrators and institutions. CVA extends the statute of limitations for filing claims of abuse sustained as a minor. Survivors can file suit until the age of 55, or within 7 years of discovering that the abuse caused harm, whichever is later. CVA also exposes institutions to retroactive liability if they enabled, ignored, or failed to prevent abuse.

In a 6-1 decision, the Court ruled as follows:

The Court held that N.J.S.A. 59:2-1.3(a)(1) does not unequivocally bar vicarious liability for acts of employees outside the scope of employment. However, to pursue such claims, a specific criterion must be met. In this case, the Court established a new three-part standard for vicarious liability under N.J.S.A. 59:2-1.3(a)(1):

1. The school must have given the employee authority to control the student’s educational environment;
2. The employee’s exercise of that authority must have resulted in the abuse; and
3. It must reasonably appear that the school tacitly approved the abuse.

The Court also rejected the argument that public schools owe a fiduciary duty to students, reasoning that schools owe fiduciary obligations to numerous stakeholders and cannot provide exclusive loyalty to individual students. 

In both cases, the Court determined that based on the new standard Plaintiffs adequately pled vicarious liability claims.  In Hornor, the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Appellate Division’s judgment, dismissing the fiduciary duty claim, but remanded the vicarious liability claim back to the lower court for further proceedings under the new three-part standard. In Simpkins, the Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgement, finding that the Plaintiffs adequately pled vicarious liability claims, and remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. The Court made note to clarify that the new three-part standard does not impose strict liability; rather, it requires inquiry on a case-by-case basis into the school’s acts and omissions.

When deciding this case, the Court considered the spirit of the law and what the Legislature intended when codifying and enacting the governing rules of law in this matter. The Court reasoned that the CVA’s ‘notwithstanding’ clause eliminates all TCA immunities. Sexual abuse will never fall under the scope of employment. An absolute restriction on out-of-scope vicarious liability would completely undermine the CVA’s purpose of expanding victims’ rights. The three-part test created by the Court balances victims’ protections with reasonable limitations on public entity liability by shifting the focus on school officials’ knowledge and authority designation rather than strict liability.  

What does this mean for schools and survivors moving forward? For schools, this decision and three-part standard should incentivize schools to implement and enforce policies and procedures to protect against abuse to avoid legal ramifications, but more importantly, to protect children. Survivors can now sue schools for direct liability and vicarious liability. This decision will impact every case currently being litigated on these issues due to the new three-part standard. This decision will also mean that cases which have already been decided will likely have filings for motions for reconsideration in light of the new standard.

Schools and other entities often focus too much on the financial implications of issues and choose not to proactively address possible misconduct. This decision puts schools on notice. Parents put their trust in schools and the teachers they employe to educate their children. When teachers betray that trust, schools need to be held accountable for not protecting the children who are entrusted in their care.

If you or a loved one is a survivor of teacher or school-based sexual abuse, you are not alone—and the law is evolving in your favor.

The attorneys at Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri Webb LLC are committed to helping survivors seek justice and hold negligent institutions accountable.

Please contact Paul M. da Costa, Esq., head of the Firm’s Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Departments, today for a confidential consultation.  Paul can be reached at 973-274-5200 or pdacosta@sarnolawfirm.com