You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, A SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST, WAS ASSAULTED BY AN AUTISTIC STUDENT;...
,

PLAINTIFF, A SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST, WAS ASSAULTED BY AN AUTISTIC STUDENT; THE NEGLIGENT-PARENTAL-SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE STUDENT’S PARENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “negligent parental supervision” cause of action against the parents of an autistic child who assaulted plaintiff school psychologist should not have been dismissed. In addition, the parents did not demonstrate their son was, due to his disability, incapable of being liable for negligence or assault. The facts are not discussed:

The plaintiff * * * was assaulted by the defendant David George (hereinafter David), an autistic student with an IQ of 41, who was almost 14 years old at the time. * * *

“While, as a general rule, parents are not liable for the torts of their child, a parent may be held liable, inter alia, where the parent[s] negligence consists entirely of his [or her] failure reasonably to restrain the child from vicious conduct imperilling others, when the parent has knowledge of the child’s propensity toward such conduct'” … . Thus, a parent moving for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging negligent supervision based on the physical tortious conduct of the parent’s child, must establish, prima facie, that the parent was not aware that, prior to the subject incident, his or her child engaged in violent or vicious conduct that would endanger a third party … . …

The defendants’ contention that the branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against David, on the ground that due to his developmental disability he was “non sui juris and incapable of being liable for negligence” or assault …, is without merit. Levine v George, 2022 NY Slip Op 05032, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Parents are usually not responsible for the torts of their child. In this case the autistic child assaulted plaintiff school psychologist. The facts were not discussed, But the appellate court determined the “negligent parental supervision” cause of action should not have been dismissed.

 

You might also like
BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR PLAINTIFF IN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO LIST THE ACTION AS AN ASSET IN HIS VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CAR DEALER, DUE TO AN ERROR, DID NOT SUBMIT THE CORRECT REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THE MANDATED FIVE-DAY PERIOD, THAT DEFECT DID NOT INVALIDATE THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE DRIVER INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT; THE DEALER WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
Circumstances When Hospital May Be Liable for Actions of Non-Employee Doctor Explained
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DELAYED SIX YEARS BEFORE RESTORING THE ACTION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR AND FOUR YEARS BEFORE MOVING FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; INTEREST ON THE MORTGAGE DEBT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLLED FOR THOSE PERIODS (SECOND DEPT).
WATER DISTRICT’S CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT DRINKING WATER SUPPLY TANK WAS IMMUNE FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE VILLAGE CODE AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT.
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED (1) THE PROTRUDING PIPE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, (2) THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK, AND (3) THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION PROHIBITING THE ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS DID NOT APPLY; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
AN ATTORNEY’S REFERENCE IN AN EMAIL TO A NONPARTY AS A “WIFE BEATER” WAS ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED AS PERTINENT TO THE DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY OWNER EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SNOW-RELATED SLIP AND FALL CASE 2ND DEPT.

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

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S... PETITIONER WAS ISSUED A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL SPACE WITH 557 PARKING...