Hanley by Hanley v. Hornbeck

• Decision Date: 19 February 1987
• Citation: 512 N.Y.S.2d 262,127 A.D.2d 905
• Parties: , 37 Ed. Law Rep. 900 George Waldmar HANLEY, an Infant, by Martha A. HANLEY, His Parent and Natural Guardian, et al., Appellants, v. Richard HORNBECK, an Infant, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 262

512 N.Y.S.2d 262

127 A.D.2d 905, 37 Ed. Law Rep. 900

George Waldmar HANLEY, an Infant, by Martha A. HANLEY, His Parent and Natural Guardian, et al., Appellants, v. Richard HORNBECK, an Infant, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

Feb. 19, 1987.

Kiley, Feldmann, Whalen, Devine & Patane, P.C. (Robert G. Suttmeier, of counsel), Oneida, for appellants.

Livingston S. Latham, Unadilla, for New Berlin Central School District Number 0097, respondent.

Before MAHONEY, P.J., and MAIN, MIKOLL, LEVINE and HARVEY, JJ.

MAHONEY, Presiding Justice.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered June 18, 1985 in Chenango County, which set aside a verdict in favor of plaintiffs rendered at Trial Term (Ingraham, J.), and dismissed the complaint.

On June 21, 1983, plaintiff George Waldmar Hanley, an eighth grade student at defendant New Berlin Central School District, was participating in a game of wiffleball with, among others, defendant Richard Hornbeck, when the two youngsters became involved in an altercation during which Hornbeck struck Hanley resulting in injuries to his nose and teeth.

Hanley's mother, individually and on her son's behalf, sued both Hornbeck and the School District. Plaintiffs allege that the School District's gym teacher, George Seiler, was negligent in the discharge of his duties as the School District's agent in his supervision of the gym class. The School District denied the allegations set forth in the complaint, and, as a separate defense, alleged that Hanley's injuries were caused solely by his own culpable conduct. The School District also cross-claimed for contribution.

Testimony at trial showed that Hanley and Hornbeck were on opposing teams in the wiffleball game when a dispute arose as to who was to take over the position of catcher even though Hanley was a player on the team in the field and Hornbeck was a player on the team at bat. As both boys were debating this issue they came into contact with each other. When Seiler, the School District's gym teacher, started to separate the boys, Hornbeck hit Hanley in the face. Seiler testified that only a few seconds had elapsed from the time he first saw the two boys pushing each other to when the scuffle ended. Plaintiffs did establish at trial that Hornbeck had previously been involved in a fight with two boys and had placed himself in a position requiring discipline.

At the close of the case, Trial Term reserved decision on the School District's motion to dismiss the complaint. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for damages totaling $8,500 and apportioned 20% culpable conduct to Hornbeck. Thereafter, Trial Term granted the School District's motion to set aside the jury verdict, holding that the proximate cause of Hanley's injuries was the unforeseen intervention of Hornbeck and, accordingly, no liability could be attributed to the School District. This appeal by plaintiffs ensued.

A school district is...