Can a school district be held liable for failing to protect a student from a violent third party?

In Rodriguez, a high school student sued the district in which his school was located, alleging that while on the campus, he was stabbed by a nonstudent third-party assailant. We concluded that even though a school district has a duty to protect students on campus from violent assaults by third parties, the district was not liable in Rodriguez because no statute [15 Cal.App.4th 1854] provided for liability. (Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist., supra, 186 Cal.App.3d at pp. 715-722, 230 Cal.Rptr. 823.)

By contrast, in Leger v. Stockton Unified School Dist. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1448, 249 Cal.Rptr. 688, the plaintiff sued employees of the district there involved and pursued the district on a theory of respondeat superior. Government Code section 820 provides, in subdivision (a), that except as otherwise statutorily provided, "a public employee is liable for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person." Subdivision (a) of section 815.2 provides that the entity "is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would ... have given rise to a cause of action against that employee...." "Thus, 'the general rule is that an employee of a public entity is liable for his torts to the same extent as a private person ( 820, subd. (a)) and the public entity is vicariously liable for any injury which its employee causes ( 815.2, subd. (a)) to the same extent as a private employer ( 815, subd. (b)).' [Citations.]" (Leger v. Stockton Unified School Dist., supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 1461, 249 Cal.Rptr. 688.)