You are here: / / SCHOOL OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO STUDENT STRUCK BY A CAR AFTER LEAVING THE...
,

SCHOOL OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO STUDENT STRUCK BY A CAR AFTER LEAVING THE SCHOOL WITH PERMISSION.

The Second Department determined defendant school did not owe a duty of care to a student who was struck by a car one block from the school after leaving the school with permission:

​

A school’s duty to supervise the students in its charge arises from its physical custody and control over them … . “When 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”… . “Generally, a school cannot be held liable for injuries that occur off school property and beyond the orbit of its authority” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the infant plaintiff had left school grounds with the permission of his mother and, thus, was no longer in the defendants’ custody or under their control and was outside the orbit of their authority … . The defendants also demonstrated, prima facie, that the infant plaintiff was not released into a foreseeably hazardous setting that the defendants had a hand in creating … . Donofrio v Rockville Ctr. Union Free Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 02774, 2nd Dept 4-12-17

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (SCHOOL OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO STUDENT STRUCK BY A CAR AFTER LEAVING THE SCHOOL WITH PERMISSION)/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SCHOOL OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO STUDENT STRUCK BY A CAR AFTER LEAVING THE SCHOOL WITH PERMISSION)

You might also like
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE MOVIE THEATER SEAT AND THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE OTHER THAN DEFENDANTS COULD HAVE DAMAGED THE SEAT (SECOND DEPT).
Newly Discovered Evidence Required Vacation of Murder Conviction
IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF SIBLINGS TO REMAIN TOGETHER, CUSTODY OF BOTH CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO FATHER IN THIS MODIFICATION PROCEEDING.
THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE “HOLDER (OF THE NOTE)” REQUIREMENTS OF THE UCC WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO STRIKE SCHOOL’S ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY DENIED, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY ANOTHER STUDENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE VAGUE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE RENDERED THE CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ENDORSEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE DEFENDANT INSURER TO EXCLUDE COVERAGE FOR AN OIL SPILL DID NOT MEET THE STRICT CRITERIA FOR AN EXCLUSION (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PRECONDITIONS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 (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

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION IN THIS LEASE AGREEMENT WAS AN UNENFORCEABLE P... NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.