You are here: / / STUDENT WITH CEREBRAL PALSY COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A SUPERVISED...
,

STUDENT WITH CEREBRAL PALSY COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A SUPERVISED GAME, SUPERVISION WAS ADEQUATE AND INJURY WAS DUE TO A SPONTANEOUS ACT WHICH SUPERVISION COULD NOT PREVENT, SCHOOL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the complaint in this negligent supervision case was properly dismissed. The student plaintiff had cerebral palsy and was being supervised at recess by an aide who was ten feet aware. The student was playing a game which was supervised by an athletic director when the student plaintiff and another student collided:

​

The infant plaintiff … [alleged] that the defendants were negligent in failing to provide adequate supervision, and in allowing the infant plaintiff to participate in the wall ball game. … [T]he defendants moved for summary judgment … contending that they provided adequate supervision to the children during recess, that the infant plaintiff’s Individualized Education Plan did not restrict him from playing during recess, and that … any alleged failure to provide adequate supervision was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries because the collision occurred suddenly and unexpectedly.

​

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision”… . Schools are not, however, insurers of their students’ safety, and may not be held liable ” for every thoughtless or careless act by which one pupil may injure another'” … . Moreover, when an accident occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, any lack of supervision is not a proximate cause of the injury … .

Here, the defendants … [demonstrated] that they provided adequate supervision to the infant plaintiff during recess… and, in any event, that the accident was caused by a sudden and spontaneous collision which could not have been prevented by more intense supervision … . Tzimopoulos v Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 08296, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SUPERVISION, SCHOOLS, STUDENT WITH CEREBRAL PALSY COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A SUPERVISED GAME, SUPERVISION WAS ADEQUATE AND INJURY WAS DUE TO A SPONTANEOUS ACT WHICH SUPERVISION COULD NOT PREVENT, SCHOOL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, STUDENT WITH CEREBRAL PALSY COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A SUPERVISED GAME, SUPERVISION WAS ADEQUATE AND INJURY WAS DUE TO A SPONTANEOUS ACT WHICH SUPERVISION COULD NOT PREVENT, SCHOOL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, STUDENT WITH CEREBRAL PALSY COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A SUPERVISED GAME, SUPERVISION WAS ADEQUATE AND INJURY WAS DUE TO A SPONTANEOUS ACT WHICH SUPERVISION COULD NOT PREVENT, SCHOOL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/by
You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WAS DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THAT GROUND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES ON PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLE BY EMINENT DOMAIN.
Plaintiff’s Deposition Testimony Stating that She Did Not Know the Cause of Her Fall Was Fatal to the Action—the Deposition Testimony Was Not Overcome by a “Feigned Issue” Subsequently Raised in an Affidavit or by Expert Opinion Evidence Alleging the Cause of the Fall
WATER VALVE CAP OVER WHICH INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WHILE PLAYING BASKETBALL IN THE STREET WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​
Criteria for Standing to Contest Zoning Variances Explained
THE PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION DIRECTING THE COLLECTION OF MORE EVIDENCE IS THE LAW OF THE CASE; THE DIRECTION WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY SUPREME COURT UPON REMITTAL (SECOND DEPT).
MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION, COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEX OFFENSE TRIAL COULD NOT BE LOCATED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE PROVISION RE LIABILITY FOR EXCAVATION DAMAGE WERE MET, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN... PLAINTIFF’S CROSSING IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT DRIVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE...