Dunne v. Orleans Parish School Bd.
| Decision Date | 25 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-C-0305,84-C-0305 |
| Citation | 463 So.2d 1267 |
| Parties | 23 Ed. Law Rep. 449 Wayne R. DUNNE, Individually and as Natural Tutor for the Minor Kevin Dunne v. ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD and Charles V. and Lynne Cuccia, d/b/a Gay-Lynne School of Dance. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Trevor G. Bryan, Jefferson, Bryan & Gray, New Orleans, for defendant-applicant.
Peggy LeBlanc, Michael Riehlmann, Tobias, LeBlanc, Thompson & Waldrup, New Orleans, W. Marvin Hall, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Metaire, John A. Cvejanovich, New Orleans, for respondents.
This litigation resulted from an accident in which nine-year old Kevin Dunne fell from a set of gymnastic rings in the gymnasium of Abramson High School, which was owned by defendant Orleans Parish School Board. On the evening of the accident, Kevin and his parents attended a dance recital given by defendants Charles and Lynne Cuccia in an auditorium in the school complex, and Kevin wandered across the hall from the auditorium into the unlocked gymnasium where the ring set was located. The critical issue as to the Board's liability is whether the set of gymnastic rings in an unlocked and unsupervised gymnasium, which was accessible to children who attended the dance recital in the adjacent auditorium and strayed from the auditorium into the gymnasium, presented an unreasonable risk of harm. We conclude that the risk of harm was not so unreasonable that the Board should be held liable for this particular injury, and we accordingly dismiss the action.
The Cuccias rented the auditorium for the purpose of staging the dance recital. Kevin attended the recital with his parents and sat next to his father in the rear of the auditorium. During the performance, Kevin obtained permission from his father to go into the hall for a drink of water with his ten-year old cousin, Robert. When Kevin and Robert entered the hall, they peered through the open gymnasium door and saw three boys playing on a set of gymnastic rings. Since Robert knew one of the boys, he entered the gymnasium and began a conversation.
While Robert and his friend talked, the other two boys invited Kevin to play on the ring set, which consisted of a pair of rings, each of which was attached to a rope that hung from a cross beam on the ceiling. Since Kevin was unable to reach the rings which were about seven feet above the floor, one of the boys obtained a chair and placed it under the rings. When Kevin stood on the chair and grabbed the rings, one of the boys pulled Kevin by his feet back toward the bleachers as far as he could go. Despite Kevin's pleas, the boy released him, and the rope swung as far as it could, at which point Kevin "flipped off" and fell onto the gymnasium floor, injuring his head and shoulder.
The high school principal testified that the ring set, when not in use, was secured by means of a separate rope to a point on the wall above the collapsible bleachers, about 12 to 15 feet above the floor. The evidence did not establish who removed the rings from the secured position, but the principal stated that the removal was usually accomplished by use of a pole.
Only Kevin and Robert testified as eyewitnesses to the accident. At first, Kevin testified that when the rope swung "to the end of the rope", he simply "flipped off" the rings. Upon being asked leading questions, however, Kevin verified that he flipped when the swing of the rope was abruptly halted. Robert clarified the fact that the ropes containing the rings were restrained by the tiedown rope from swinging beyond a certain distance from the bleachers wall. 1
The principal testified further that while all of the outside doors of the gymnasium and the building complex were always locked, it was impractical to keep locked the doors which led from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hosp.
...between the duty owed and the risk encountered is a proper focus of inquiry in finding the existence of a duty. Dunne v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 463 So.2d 1267 (La.1985); PPG Industries, supra; Hill, supra. We have also said that foreseeability alone cannot be the sole inquiry because al......
-
Socorro v. City of New Orleans
...risk encountered is a proper focus of inquiry in finding the existence of a duty. Lejeune, 556 So.2d at 568-69; Dunne v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 463 So.2d 1267 (La.1985); Hill v. Lundin and Assoc., Inc., supra. The risk of sustaining a neck injury while diving head first into untested wa......
-
Sparacello v. Andrews
...which was imposed to protect against the risk involved makes the offender negligent under the above articles. Dunne v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 463 So.2d 1267 (La.1985); Harris v. Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc., 455 So.2d 1364 (La.1984); Smith v. Travelers Ins. Co., 430 So.2d 55 (La.1983). ......
-
Glynn v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc.
...may be within the ambit of foreseeability. See, Sibley v. Gifford Hill and Co. Inc., 475 So.2d 315 (La.1985); Dunne v. Orleans Parish School Board, 463 So.2d 1267 (La.1985); Carter v. City Parish Government, 423 So.2d 1080 It is undisputed that Schwegmann failed to turn on the lights of the......