You are here: / / Questions of Fact Re: Whether School Owed Duty of Care to Student Struck...
,

Questions of Fact Re: Whether School Owed Duty of Care to Student Struck by a Car While Playing Tag Five Minutes Before School Began and Whether a Breach of that Duty Proximately Caused the Injury

The First Department determined there were issues of fact raised concerning the school's duty to the plaintiff, an eighth grade student, after he was discharged from a school bus five minutes before school began.  The student was struck by a car when he darted or was pushed into the street while playing tag:

Although the driver of the car was not negligent in causing the accident …, the record presents issues of fact as to whether defendant [board of education] owed a duty of care to protect the infant plaintiff from traffic hazards after he was discharged by the school bus in front of the school, five minutes before the school day would begin …, and whether that duty was breached by the school's failure to provide adequate safety measures, such as traffic barricades, proximately causing the injury … . Mamadou S v Feliciano, 2014 NY Slip OP 08909, 1st Dept 12-23-14

 

You might also like
AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST MAY ONLY CONSIDER THE GROUND FOR THE INITIAL AGENCY DECISION; THE GROUNDS FOR A SUBSEQUENT DECISION ISSUED AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS COMMENCED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR THE METADATA OF THE DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE METADATA WAS NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ IN THE FOIL REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).
LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, FALL NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240.
WHETHER PLAINTIFF INHALED ENOUGH ASBESTOS TO CAUSE HIS CANCER WAS THE SUBJECT OF COMPETING SIMULATION STUDIES; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A WORK AREA ON THE 16TH FLOOR USED FOR RENOVATION WORK ON THE 41ST FLOOR, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE 16TH FLOOR WAS A CONSTRUCTION AREA WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6), THE COURT NOTED A LESSEE IS AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT).
WHEN DEFENDANT MADE STATEMENTS AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA WHICH RAISED A POSSIBLE INTOXICATION DEFENSE THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER; THE ISSUE NEEDN’T BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
DRUG FACTORY JURY INSTRUCTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS POLICE EXCESSIVE-FORCE CASE SET ASIDE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO A $200,000 DAMAGES AWARD (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD THE COURT WARNED HIM OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA.

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

Worker’s Compensation Award Made by Arbitrator Pursuant to an Authorized... Plaintiff-Resident of an Adult Care Facility Did Not Have Standing to Object...