You are here: / / PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S CHEMICAL BURNS WERE CAUSED BY THE INTENTIONALLY...
, ,

PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S CHEMICAL BURNS WERE CAUSED BY THE INTENTIONALLY WRONGFUL, SPONTANEOUS, UNFORESEEABLE ACTS OF THIRD PARTIES OVER WHOM DEFENDANT SCHOOL HAD NO CONTROL OR AUTHORITY; STUDENTS HAD APPARENLY PUT DRANO IN A WATER BOTTLE WHICH PLAINTIFF KICKED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE SCHOOL DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF ON ITS LACK OF NOTICE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant charter school [Mission] did not have notice of the dangerous condition which allegedly caused plaintiff-student’s chemical burns. Plaintiff kicked a plastic water bottle which had Drano in it, called a Drano bomb. Plaintiff alleged school personnel knew or should have known other students were making the Drano bombs:

The court properly granted Mission’s summary judgment motion, even assuming that a triable issue exists as to whether plaintiff was participating in Mission’s afterschool program at the time she was injured. Plaintiff testified that, before she was injured, she had seen other children, who were not participating in Mission’s afterschool program, on a different basketball court in the public park pouring a liquid into a Poland Spring bottle, not a Vitamin Water bottle. Plaintiff theorizes that Mission’s staff should have observed the conduct of these children and intervened to stop them. However, plaintiff’s own testimony, on which Mission was entitled to rely to satisfy its prima facie burden on the summary judgment motion, established that the actions of the children — even indulging the speculative assumption that they created the Drano bomb that later injured plaintiff — were the intentionally wrongful, spontaneous, and unforeseeable acts of third parties over whom Mission had no control or authority … .

From the dissent:

Mission’s motion presented no evidence whatsoever from any of its employees, teachers, supervisors, or in the form of records from the afterschool program. Mission consequently failed to address, in the first instance, the issue of whether it had “notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury” … . Under the circumstances, Mission’s reliance on the testimony of other parties was insufficient to carry its prima facie burden. S. G. v Harlem Vil. Academy Charter Sch., 2023 NY Slip Op 01069, First Dept 2-28-23

Practice Point: Here the school successfully argued the plaintiff-student’s chemical burns were caused by the intentionally wrongful, spontaneous, and unforeseeable acts of other children over whom the school had no control. Plaintiff kicked a water bottle which had Drano in it (a Drano bomb). Two dissenters argued the school did not present sufficient evidence of its lack of notice.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE SLIPPED ON LIQUID AND FELL AFTER REACHING FOR THE HANDRAIL, WHICH WAS LOOSE, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE LIQUID BUT DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN ON THE ALLEGEDLY LOOSE HANDRAIL (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY CAUSED BY AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT IN AN OUTSIDE BASKETBALL COURT.
FURTIVE MOVEMENTS JUSTIFIED POLICE OFFICER’S LIMITED SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, USE OF BANK CARD READER ON CARDS IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION DID NOT REQUIRE A SEARCH WARRANT (FIRST DEPT).
FOR CAUSE FORFEITURE TERM OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT NOT ELIMINATED BY A SUBSEQUENT FORM EXTENDING THE DUE DATE OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER, WHO CONSENTED TO PROVIDING A DNA SAMPLE AFTER ARREST, MAY SEEK DISCRETIONARY EXPUNGEMENT OF THE DNA PROFILE AND UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS UPON BEING ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, RESPONDENT JUDGE DIRECTED TO DECIDE WHETHER EXPUNGEMENT IS APPROPRIATE UNDER THE FACTS (FIRST DEPT).
THE ARBITRATION AWARD IS VALID EVEN IF BASED ON AN ERROR OF LAW OR FACT; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE A LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT DID NOT PRECLUDE THE ATTORNEY’S ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; CPLR 5225 DOES NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTUAL SUBROGATION PROVISIONS APPLIED TO CERTAIN POLICIES COVERING INJURY BY LEAD PAINT.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED FATHER’S MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY... AFFIDAVITS NOT BASED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY CERTIFIED BUSINESS...