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
State’s Violation of Inmate Disciplinary-Hearing Due Process Rules Did Not Entitle Inmate to Summary Judgment In His Unlawful Confinement Action
THE JUDGE’S ASSESSING SORA RISK-LEVEL POINTS NOT REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; THE JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTION LAW FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE; DETERMINATION VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
Battery Cause of Action Based Upon the Complete Absence of Consent or Fraudulently Induced Consent Is Not Duplicative of a Dental Malpractice Allegation—Criteria Explained/Questions of Fact Raised Re: the Deceptive Business Practices Cause of Action—Some of the Criteria Explained
ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) APPROVED THE GAS PIPELINE, THE STATE DID NOT ISSUE A WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION (WQC) FOR THE PROJECT, THEREFORE THE PIPELINE COMPANY CAN NOT SEEK EASEMENTS OVER PRIVATE LAND PURSUANT TO THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW (EDPL) TO INSTALL THE PIPELINE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE UNIQUE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE FOR VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION WERE NOT MET; THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT STIPULATED TO THE ACCURACY OF AN INACCURATE SPECIAL INFORMATION ABOUT A PRIOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CONVICTION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Defendant’s Flight in His Vehicle, Nearly Striking an Officer, Severed Any Connection with the Initial Detention and Evidence Discarded from the Vehicle Was Properly Seized
Employer Not Required to Accommodate Employee with Epilepsy with Permanent Light-Duty Assignment
Trial Court’s Refusal to Allow Defense Witness to Be Called Required Reversal 

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

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