Miller v. Yoshimoto
| Decision Date | 03 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 5546,5546 |
| Citation | 536 P.2d 1195,56 Haw. 333 |
| Parties | Roger J. MILLER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jack Y. YOSHIMOTO et al., Defendants, and The State of Hawaii, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. It is widely recognized that the public school systems have a duty of reasonable supervision of the students entrusted to them.
2. The State of Hawaii has a duty of reasonably supervising the public school students of Hawaii during their required attendance and presence at school and while the students are leaving school immediately after the school day is over.
3. The duty of reasonable supervision entails general supervision unless specific needs, or a dangerous or a likely to be dangerous situation calls for specific supervision.
4. The fact that there was no personnel assigned specifically to the area in which the person was injured is not, of itself, sufficient to show a breach of the State of Hawaii's duty.
H. William Burgess, Honolulu (Hale Kronenberg, Honolulu, with him on the briefs, Burgess & Gelber, Honolulu, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Nelson S. W. Chang, Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu (George Pai, Atty. Gen., with him on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before RICHARDSON, C. J., KOBAYASHI, OGATA and MENOR, JJ., and Circuit Judge KATO assigned by reason of vacancy.
This appeal by plaintiff (appellant) is against the State of Hawaii (appellee) only.
The appellant instituted this negligence action for damages for the toal loss of her left eye cause by the willful action of defendant Richard Yoshimoto, a minor (defendant). Appellant brought this action against both Yoshimoto and the appellee and alleged, inter alia, that appellee failed to provide proper supervision of students in or around the school area in which appellant was injured. The trial court 1 gave judgment to the appellee. We affirm. 1
The issues on appeal primarily involve the following:
1. Finding of fact of the trial court, to-wit:
There was no act or omission by the (appellee) or any of its employees that was the proximate cause of the injury to (appellant) and the (appellee) was in no way negligent in the premises.
2. Conclusions of law of the trial court, to-wit:
a. The action taken by the principal in assigning after-school supervisory duties to school personnel was sufficient and adequate under the circumstances.
b. Under the circumstances of this case, the (appellee) had no legal duty to provide supervision of students in or around the area in which the (appellant) was injured.
c. The absence of any supervisory personnel in the area in which (appellant) was injured was not the proximate cause of her injury.
Aliamanu Intermediate School, hereinafter A.I.S., is a public school operated by the appellee. It is comprised of approximately 1600 students in the seventh and eighth grades.
Of the 1600 students approximately 80 percent use the buses to return home, while the other 20 percent walk home. Between 60 to 90 students walk home in the school campus area where the appellant was injured.
The principal of A.I.S., Mr. Harry Ono, had assigned various school personnel supervisory duties between 2:10 p. m. and 2:35 p. m.
On November 2, 1971, at about 2:10 p. m., Helen M. Miller, appellant, and her fellow students were dismissed from their classes at A.I.S. Accompanied by her friend, neighbor and classmate, Susan Colburn, appellant started walking home from her classroom in 'B' Building at about 2:15 p. m. In order to reach home the girls had to walk 2 between 'F' Building and 'B' Building and then across the school yard toward a flight of stairs which leads to Salt Lake Boulevard.
As appellant and Susan proceeded between 'B' Building and 'F' Building, Susan heard and appellant saw rocks 3 being thrown from the end of 'F' Building toward the area near 'B' Building.
They recognized the two boys who were throwing the rocks as fellow students at A.I.S.
Appellant saw the boys throw three or four rocks; Susan saw the boys throw two or three rocks.
The girls then continued past the end of 'F' Building and appellant asked the boys to stop throwing rocks as the rocks were going across the route where the girls would be walking. One of the boys then started to tease appellant.
As the girls continued walking the boys threw three or four rocks at the girls. Appellant again told the boys to stop throwing rocks, but the boys continued to throw rocks. These rocks came close enough to cause the girls to dodge them.
Appellant then told one of the boys that they 'better not throw any more rocks' at her. Two more rocks were thrown at Susan and then appellant was struck in the eye by a rock.
Including the rock that injured appellant's eye, a total of between eight and twelve rocks were thrown by the boys at appellant and Susan.
The injury to appellant's eye required an enucleation of the left eye, an operation whereby the entire eye is removed from the socket. An artificial eye was later inserted.
HRS § 296-12 empowers the Board of Education to adopt rules and regulations for the governance of all teachers, educational officers, other personnel, and pupils, and for carrying out the general scheme of education. Pursuant to this power the Official Policies and Regulations of the Department of Education, State of Hawaii 1970 (adopted 10/1970), provide in part the following:
Policies and Regulations, Department of Education, State of Hawaii
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PRINCIPALS POLICY
The principal shall be the chief administrative officer of his school. He shall be responsible for the planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling of the educational programs, finances, personnel and facilities of his school, and he shall perform all other duties assigned by the district superintendent.
[56 Haw. 338] At Page 1900-1.1:
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEACHERS REGULATIONS
The teacher shall:
* * *
* * *
2. Observe the hours of work established for the school to which he is assigned and be subject to call by the principal, either before or after school, and at such times as his services may be required at special school functions.
* * *
* * *
7. Assist the supervision of pupils before school, during intermission and after school.
* * *
* * *
10. Be familiar with and observe department policies, rules and regulations.
* * *
* * *
At Page 4210: STUDENT SAFETY POLICY
Attention of the Department of Education shall be given to the personal safety of each student while on campus or engaged in school-connected activities off-campus. Such attention shall include instruction in safety habits and attitudes; proper maintenance of buildings, grounds, and equipment; establishment and enforcement of proper rules of conduct at each school; and provision of services to safeguard students from the deviant behavior of those who fail to conform to standards of conduct compatible with the best interests of all.
[56 Haw. 339] At Page 4210.1: STUDENT SAFETY REGULATIONS
1. Instruction in safety habits and attitudes shall be assumed by all school staff members.
2. The principal shall inspect or cause to be inspected all buildings, grounds, and equipment to which students have access, recommending proper measures for the maintenance of adequate safety.
3. Involving the students, teachers, and parents to the extent which they may contribute their ideas and support the principal shall establish necessary rules of conduct to govern behavior and safety on the campus and at school-related activities off-campus.
4. The principal shall deploy his staff members in such a manner that their supervisory responsibilities shall include the personal safety of all students.
5. The principal shall seek additional resources, outside his immediate staff, to prevent physical harm to the students under his supervision.
6. District Superintendents shall take into consideration the behavioral characteristics and special needs of students in their allocations of personnel to schools.
JUNIOR POLICE OFFICER PROGRAM REGULATIONS
1. School's concern. The public schools have a concern for the safety and welfare of their students in the immediate vicinity of the school as they come and go before and after the regular school day.
* * *
* * *
8. Hours of duty. Junior Police Officers, under the supervision of a member of the school staff, shall be on duty at least 30 minutes prior to the opening of school and for a period of 15 minutes after students are dismissed. Exceptions to this schedule may be made with the approval of the principal and the director of the Junior Police Organization.
(Emphasis added.)
It is widely recognized that the public school systems have a duty of reasonable supervision of the students entrusted to them. Titus v. Lindberg, 49 N.J. 66, 73, 228 A.2d 65, 68 (1967). See also Annot., 'Tort Liability of Public Schools and Institutions of Higher Learning for Injuries Resulting from Lack or Insufficiency of Supervision', 38 A.L.R.3d 830 (1971).
We agree with the above view and conclude that the appellee has a duty of reasonably supervising the public school students of Hawaii during their required attendance and presence at school and while the students are leaving school immediately after the school day is over. And, in our opinion, the duty of reasonable supervision entails general supervision of the students, unless specific needs, or a dangerous or a likely to be dangerous situation calls for specific supervision.
We are of the opinion that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe Parents No. 1 v. State, Dept. of Educ.
...take reasonable precautions to avoid the foreseeable risk that Norton would molest Melony and Nicole. Quoting Miller v. Yoshimoto, 56 Haw. 333, 340, 536 P.2d 1195, 1199 (1975), the circuit court noted that the DOE is under the duty to "reasonably supervis[e] public school students during th......
-
Figueroa v. State
...suggest as likely to happen. Haworth v. State, 60 Hawaii 557, 592 P.2d 820 (1979); Ajirogi v. State, Supra ; Miller v. Yoshimoto, 56 Hawaii 333, 536 P.2d 1195 (1975); Rodrigues v. State, The trial court specifically found that the State was negligent in failing to adhere to various rules an......
-
Shoemaker v. Takai
...a jury will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Shinn v. Edwin Yee, Ltd., 57 Haw. 215, 553 P.2d 733 (1976); Miller v. Yoshimoto, 56 Haw. 333, 536 P.2d 1195 (1975). Of course, for this rule to apply, there must be at least substantial evidence in the record to sustain the factual find......
-
Kim v. State
...we next focus on whether it committed error in dismissing the action and entering judgment for the defendant. In Miller v. Yoshimoto, 56 Haw. 333, 536 P.2d 1195 (1975), we recognized that "public school systems have a duty of reasonable supervision of the students entrusted to them" and con......