You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S SON SUFFERED A BROKEN JAW IN A COLLISION WITH ANOTHER...
,

PLAINTIFF’S SON SUFFERED A BROKEN JAW IN A COLLISION WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A GYM-CLASS TOUCH FOOTBALL GAME; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER SUCH A COLLISION WAS FORESEEABLE AND WHETHER INADEQUATE SUPERVISION WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the school’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision action shiould not have been granted. Plaintiff’s son, a high school freshman, suffered a broken jaw during a touch football game during gym class when a taller student collided with him. The students were to call their own penalties and, according to plaintiff’s son, there were four games going on at once:

The testimony of the physical education teacher raised an issue of fact with respect to notice inasmuch as it established that, on the day before the collision, there was a “very similar” incident involving a collision between two boys during a touch football game in physical education class, resulting in injury. Nonetheless, the students in his game were, according to the testimony of plaintiff’s son, expected to call their own penalties. In addition, although the substitute teacher who was supervising the class that day testified that the class was divided into three separate games and that he was able to supervise them all simultaneously, plaintiff’s son further testified that the class was divided into four games, and the substitute teacher acknowledged that he did not see the collision that caused the injury to plaintiff’s son.

… Plaintiff’s son testified that he believed the collision was intentional because he “was nowhere near the ball handler” at the time he was hit from behind and “the only way” that the other student, who was six inches taller, could have hit plaintiff’s son’s jaw was if he had lowered his shoulder. Thus, considering that testimony together with the testimony that the students were expected to call their own penalties, we conclude that there exists a question of fact whether this was a “foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the school’s negligence” … . Ismahan A. v Williamsville Bd. of Educ., 2021 NY Slip Op 07396, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS SOLD TO A SCRAP YARD AND THEREFORE OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF AND (2) WHETHER DEFENDANTS OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE IN THE PUMP WHICH EXPLODED WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FOURTH DEPT).​
Defendant’s Attorney Not Ineffective for Failing to Make a Motion to Suppress—Nature of a Motion Which, If Not Made, Would Constitute Ineffective Assistance Addressed by the Majority and the Dissent
DEFENDANT THREW BAGS OF COCAINE ONTO THE FLOOR IN PLAIN SIGHT OF POLICE OFFICERS, NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE CHARGE.
IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR A JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA DEAL WITH A CODEFENDANT IN EXCHANGE FOR TESTIMONY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE “ALLEGEDLY INCAPACITATED PERSON” (AIP) WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW GUARDIANSHIP HEARING; THE AIP’S ATTORNEY CANNOT CONSENT TO THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN IF THE AIP IS NOT PRESENT; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
The Absence of Plaintiff’s (Buyer’s) Attorney’s Explicit Unconditional Approval of the Purchase Contract Invalidated the Contract, Despite Plaintiff’s Desire to Go Through with the Purchase
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT THE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO STOP DEFENDANT ON THE STREET, DETAIN HIM, SEARCH HIS BAG AND TRANSPORT HIM TO THE BURGLARY SCENE FOR A SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION (FOURTH DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Assumed the Risk of Injury from Colliding With a Window Near the Basketball Court

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

ALTHOUGH THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS PROPERLY... THE JURY’S FINDING THAT THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS INJURY”...