Hernandez v. Christopher Robin Academy

• Decision Date: 16 October 2000
• Citation: Hernandez v. Christopher Robin Academy, 276 AD2d 592, 714 N.Y.S.2d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
• Parties: RICHARD HERNANDEZ et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>CHRISTOPHER ROBIN ACADEMY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

276 A.D.2d 592

714 N.Y.S.2d 518

RICHARD HERNANDEZ et al., Respondents,

v.CHRISTOPHER ROBIN ACADEMY, Appellant.

Decided October 16, 2000.

Mangano, P.J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The infant plaintiff(hereinafter the plaintiff), a fifth-grade student at the defendant, Christopher Robin Academy, allegedly sustained physical injuries when he was pushed to the ground by a 10th-grade student who was apparently attempting to break up a fight between the plaintiff and another fifth-grade student during school recess.

Although schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision (see, Mirand v City of New York,84 NY2d 44), they are not insurers of their students' safety, and cannot be held liable for "every thoughtless or careless act by which one pupil may injure another"(Lawes v Board of Educ.,16 NY2d 302, 306)."In determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated"(Mirand v City of New York, supra, at 49).

The defendant sustained its burden of establishing that it had no actual or constructive notice of prior similar conduct by the...