In C.P.G., Etc., et al v. Uniondale School District (Index No. 612957/19, Nassau County), an infant/minor plaintiff, by way of his father, brought a lawsuit against a school district alleging, among other things, that the plaintiff sustained injuries due to negligent supervision by way of the school's employees. Particularly, the action alleged that the infant plaintiff, who was an eighth grade student at a school located within the defendant Uniondale School District, was injured while playing a "pickup" game of soccer on a field at Turtle Hook Middle School during a school-sponsored event; it is further alleged that the infant plaintiff was injured due to dangerous conditions on the field - including, it is claimed, pebbles and wet grass - and negligent supervision by the school district's employees. At some point during the litigation, the defendant school district moved for summary judgment (seeking dismissal of the case), and the trial court Judge denied the motion.
On appeal, however, the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the lower court's decision - which, in effect, dismissed the plaintiff's case. The basis of the appellate decision is the application of the doctrine of "assumption of risk," as the Court notes, "Risks inherent in a sporting activity are those which are known, apparent, natural, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation...[and] Participants are not deemed to have assumed the risk of reckless or intentional conduct, or concealed or unreasonably increased risks." The Court then holds that in the instant case, "...merely allowing children to play on a field with pebbles and wet grass does not constitute negligent supervision"; and "To hold otherwise would effectively prohibit schools from utilizing outdoor playing fields."
The Court further holds that the plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue of fact (which, in turn, allows the Court to grant the defendants' motion) - however, no explanation is provided by the Court as to why this is (such as what arguments and/or evidence was submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion). Absent from the appellate decision as well is a discussion with regards to the actual supervision and monitoring, if any, by the school district teachers/employees in relation to the infant plaintiff (which is arguably relevant, to an extent; as, for example, if the employees are not watching the infant plaintiff at all, and if the employees knew or should have known that an injury is likely to occur given the underlying facts and circumstances, then perhaps issues of fact could exist).
Salvatore R. Marino, Esq.
No comments:
Post a Comment