You are here: / / THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL’S DUTY TO SUPERVISE...
,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL’S DUTY TO SUPERVISE STUDENTS EXTENDS TO AN AREA OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL WHERE PARENTS PICK UP AND DROP OFF THE STUDENTS; INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL ON A ROAD DEFECT NEAR THE CURB (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision cause of action against defendant school should not have been dismissed. Infant plaintiff tripped and fell on a road defect that abutted a curb where students were picked up and dropped off by parents:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . “Schools are not insurers of safety, however, for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students” … . “[A] school’s duty to supervise is generally viewed as being coextensive with and concomitant to its physical custody of and control over the child,” and therefore, “[w]hen that custody ceases because the child has passed out of the orbit of its authority in such a way that the parent is perfectly free to reassume control over the child’s protection, the school’s custodial duty also ceases” … . “[W]hile a school has no duty to prevent injury to schoolchildren released in a safe and anticipated manner, the school breaches a duty when it releases a child without further supervision into a foreseeably hazardous setting it had a hand in creating”… .

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the infant plaintiff was released from school without adequate supervision into a foreseeably hazardous setting they had a hand in creating … . Thus, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that their negligent supervision over the infant plaintiff was not a proximate cause of the injuries the infant plaintiff sustained … . Levy v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02807, Second Dept 5-22-24

Practice Point: A school’s duty to supervise students may extend to areas outside the school, i.e., the area where students are picked up and dropped off by parents.

 

You might also like
(HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW DETECTIVE TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE GANG AND THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SPECIFIC MEMBERS, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW IN EVIDENCE A CHART DESCRIBING THE STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE GANG (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant-Driver’s Admission and Prior Inconsistent Statement, Contained in the Police Accident Report, Should Have Been Admitted in Evidence
FAMILY COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE TWO CHILDREN IN ITS PLACEMENT DECISION; STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
At Will Employee Can Not Use “Fraudulent Inducement” Theory Re: Acceptance-of-Employment Offer.
DEFENDANT PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF SHE DID NOT LIVE AT THE ADDRESS WHERE THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS SERVED TO WARRANT A HEARING; THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT HER FAILURE TO UPDATE HER ADDRESS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES WAS TO PREVENT SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).
Jury’s Finding a Party Was at Fault But Such Fault Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident Should Not Have Been Set Aside as Inconsistent and Against the Weight of the Evidence
DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT AND THERE WAS NO REASONABLE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IN WHICH DEFENDANT’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.
Plaintiff Cannot Be the Only Link between the Defendant and the Forum/Defendant’s “Minimum Contacts” with New York Not Demonstrated

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

THE JUDGE’S PROVIDING A RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR THE PEOPLE’S PEREMPTORY... THE LAWSUIT SOUGHT RETURN OF A DOWN PAYMENT UNDER A REAL ESTATE CONTRACT; BECAUSE...