Klein v. Hoffman
| Decision Date | 20 March 1962 |
| Citation | 15 A.D.2d 899,225 N.Y.S.2d 628 |
| Parties | Elizabeth J. KLEIN, and infant, by Jack H. Klein, her Guardian ad Litem, and Jack H. Klein, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Anna F. HOFFMAN, doing business as Hoffman School, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
B. H. Siff, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents.
V. J. Herwitz, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before BOTEIN, P. J., and RABIN, McNALLY, STEVENS and BERGAN, JJ.
Judgment for plaintiffs unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts and judgment directed for defendant dismissing the complaint without costs. The infant plaintiff, five years and four months old, was injured July 9, 1956, while attending defendant's summer day camp. There was no proof on the trial of the event which caused the infant plaintiff's injury. No one seems to have seen it. Nor was there any direct proof on the trial by any witness who saw the contemporaneous events which directly preceded and succeeded the injury. These contemporaneous events were proved by a statement of the defendant who was not herself present, based on a report by a counsellor; and testimony of defendant called as a plaintiff's witness, of what the counsellor had told her. Defendant testified: 'She told me that the child had been resting herself on the back of the swing * * * going back and forth in slow lazy movement.' The counsellor's attention was taken, for what apparently was a short time, by other children; and she next saw the child on the ground in a sitting position with her right leg under her. Photographs of the swings in evidence and other proof show they are of standard size and design for use by young children. They have low wooden backs. Plaintiff's proof is The height above the ground is 'A foot and a half.' The counsellor in charge of infant plaintiff was well qualified to be in control of young children. Even if the factual deficiencies in the record as to how the injury was incurred be bridged by assuming that plaintiff fell while pushing the swing back and forth, negligence is not established. Some danger reasonably to be apprehended must exist; or some peril which ought to have been recognized by a competent counsellor and prevented or stopped. It is not demonstrated that a child slowly pushing a child's swing back and forth while she rests herself on the back of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. State
...Astor, 168 Misc. 431, 5 N.Y.S.2d 203, aff'd, 255 App.Div. 1012, 8 N.Y.S.2d 567, aff'd, 281 N.Y. 597, 22 N.E.2d 167; Klein v. Hoffman, 15 A.D.2d 899, 225 N.Y.S.2d 628, aff'd, 12 N.Y.2d 850, 236 N.Y.S.2d 626, 187 N.E.2d 476; Brown v. American Mfg. Co., 209 App.Div. 621, 205 N.Y.S. 331; Daly v......
-
Ramos v. Salesian Junior Seminary
...shown any tendency to do so. Under the circumstances we find that there was no proof of a lack of adequate supervision (Klein v. Hoffman, 15 A.D.2d 899, 225 N.Y.S.2d 628, affd. 12 N.Y.2d 850, 236 N.Y.S.2d 626, 187 N.E.2d 476; Sauer v. Hebrew Inst., L.I., 17 A.D.2d 245, 233 N.Y.S.2d 1008, af......
- Acevedo v. City of New York
-
Dunne v. Board of Educ., Union Free School Dist. No. 9
...that defendants were negligent (cf. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 344, 162 N.E. 99, 59 A.L.R. 1253; Klein v. Hoffman, 15 A.D.2d 899, 225 N.Y.S.2d 628) or that the accident was not caused by the negligence of the infant UGHETTA, Acting P.J., and CHRIST, BRENNAN, HOPKINS and......