You are here: / / NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY...
,

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY DISMISSED, STUDENT PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD A ONE-ON-ONE AIDE BUT WENT TO THE BATHROOM UNACCOMPANIED, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FINGER IN A BATHROOM DOOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the negligent supervision cause of action against the school district was properly dismissed. Infant plaintiff, a student who had a one-on-one aide, was injured when she went to the bathroom unaccompanied. She caught her finger in a bathroom door:

While a school district is not an insurer of the safety of its students, since it cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all of their movements and activities, it has a duty to adequately supervise the students in its charge and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . Where 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 the proximate cause of the injury and summary judgment in favor of the school defendant is warranted … . Here, the District made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that any alleged inadequacy in the level of supervision was not a proximate cause of the accident … . Hinz v Wantagh Union Free Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 07105, Second Dept 10-24-18

NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY DISMISSED, STUDENT PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD A ONE-ON-ONE AIDE BUT WENT TO THE BATHROOM UNACCOMPANIED, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FINGER IN A BATHROOM DOOR (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY DISMISSED, STUDENT PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD A ONE-ON-ONE AIDE BUT WENT TO THE BATHROOM UNACCOMPANIED, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FINGER IN A BATHROOM DOOR (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY DISMISSED, STUDENT PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD A ONE-ON-ONE AIDE BUT WENT TO THE BATHROOM UNACCOMPANIED, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FINGER IN A BATHROOM DOOR (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Differences Between Civil and Criminal Contempt Explained
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS AND TOWN OFFICIAL IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER 42 USC 1983.
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE INVOICE UNDER AN ACCOUNT STATED THEORY (SECOND DEPT).
WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER DIED INTESTATE, THE DECEDENT’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY PASSED OUTSIDE THE ESTATE TO THE DISTRIBUTEES AS TENANTS IN COMMON; THEREFORE, THE PARTITION ACTION BY ONE OF THE TENANTS IN COMMON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISED ON THE GROUND AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE HAD BEEN APPOINTED (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROOF WHEN THE STAIRWAY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS CONSTRUCTED, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE BUILDING CODE PROVISION; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN MAKING MORTGAGE PAYMENTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUBMISSION OF THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE PAINT BY SPRAYING LACQUER WHICH APPARENTLY LED TO AN EXPLOSION; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS SUFFICIENTLY CONTROLLED OR SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK SUCH THAT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY, AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS WERE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE THEORIES (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE THE CHILD HAD RECANTED THE CHILD’S TESTIMONY THAT FATHER SEXUALLY ABUSED THE CHILD WAS VAGUE AND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE ABUSE FINDING (SECOND 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 USING AN A-FRAME LADDER IN THE CLOSED POSITION WAS... TOWN CODE PROVISION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE TOWN LAW AND WAS THEREFORE VOID...