You are here: / / DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE...
,

DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant school bus company and board of education did not have notice that two children who allegedly injured infant plaintiff on the bus were capable of dangerous conduct:

Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise children 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 [the] safety [of students] . . . for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students”… . A school bus operator owes the “very same duty to the students entrusted to its care and custody”… . In cases involving injury caused by the acts of fellow students, to establish a breach of the duty to provide adequate supervision, plaintiffs must show that school authorities had “sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the [alleged] dangerous conduct” … .

\Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing evidence that they had no knowledge or notice of the infant perpetrators’ dangerous conduct, as there was no record of any inappropriate conduct by them, sexual or otherwise, prior to the incident … . Champagne v Lonero Tr., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03959, Second Dept 6-6-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SCHOOL BUSES  (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION  (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Absence of a Safety Device Which Would Reduce the Functionality of a Table Saw is Not a Design Defect–Criteria Explained
ALLOWING A POLICE OFFICER TO NARRATE A VIDEO ALLEGEDLY DEPICTING THE DEFENDANT COMMITTING ASSAULT WAS REVERIBLE ERROR; THE FUNCTION OF THE JURY WAS USURPED (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEYS WHO HAD ACCEPTED A RETAINER TO CONTEST THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN WERE NOT REQUIRED TO RETURN THE RETAINER BECAUSE IT WAS PAID FROM THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S FUNDS, NO PROOF THE ATTORNEYS WERE AWARE OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PORTION OF SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE BY DEFENDANT PARKING GARAGE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CASE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS UNSECURED AND SHIFTED; DEFENDANT ALLEGED PLAINTIFF TOLD HIS SUPERVISOR HE LOST HIS BALANCE AND JUMPED FROM THE LADDER, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
Late Submission of QDRO (Re: Spouse’s Pension) Did Not Affect Submitting Spouse’s Right to Arrears to the Date of Retirement—One Spouse’s Taking Out a Loan Against His/Her Pension Will Not Reduce the Other Spouse’s Share of the Pension
Plaintiff Wife Not Entitled to Distributive Award of Husband’s Separate Property Which Was Not Shown to Have Appreciated During the Marriage

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT FIRED INTO THE CAR AHEAD DURING A HIGH SPEED CHASE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE... ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF LOST HER LABOR LAW 740 WRONGFUL TERMINATION TRIAL, SUPREME...