Woodsmall v. Mt. Diablo Unified School Dist.

• Decision Date: 17 January 1961
• Citation: 10 Cal.Rptr. 447,188 Cal.App.2d 262
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Ronald J. WOODSMALL, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Robert A. Woodsmall, Robert A. Woodsmail, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 18971.

Page 447

10 Cal.Rptr. 447

188 Cal.App.2d 262

Ronald J. WOODSMALL, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Robert A. Woodsmall, Robert A. Woodsmail, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 18971.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Jan. 17, 1961.

Hearing Denied March 15, 1961.

Clark, Heafey & Martin, Schofield & Cunningham, Oakland, Richard G. Logan, Oakland, of counsel, for appeallant.

Weinmann, Rode, Burnhill & Moffitt, Robert C. Clifford, Oakland, Cyril Viadro, San Francisco, of counsel, for respondents.

KAUFMAN, Presiding Justice.

This is an action for personal injuries sustained by the minor plaintiff, Ronald J. Woodsmall, when he was pushed by another pupil on school property. Plaintiff, Robert A. Woodsmall, is his father and guardian ad litem. Ronald's teacher, J. T. Kaar, was originally made a defendant but the action was dismissed as to him and went to trial as to the school district only. A jury was waived, and after a brief trial, the court found that Ronald was injured as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the school district, and entered judgment in favor of Ronald for $5,270, and in favor of his father for $195. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence does not sustain the judgment and that the damages are excessive as a matter of law.

There is no dispute as to the facts. On June 6, 1957, Ronald Woodsmall was 9 years old, and a student in the fourth grade at Monte Gardens School, operated and maintained by the defendant. There were 30-35 students in Ronald's class.

At about 1:15 p. m., the class was scheduled to go to the playground for their regular physical education period. The playground was between 50 and 100 yards away from the classroom, about a 30 second walk. The pupils formed two lines, the boys in one and the girls in the other, and filed out of the classroom. Ronald was toward the front of the boys' line. The teacher, Mr. Kaar, remained behind to lock the door of the classroom. From this position, he could see only about 2/3 of the line of children moving from the doorway to the playground. The front third of the line passed from his view as the children entered the playground.

When the front of the line of children reached the playground, they began to run toward the basketball goal post where the class was to line up for physical education instruction from Mr. Kaar. Ronald was the third boy to reach the area of the goal posts. While he was running, he was pushed into a basketball goal pole by the boy behind him. Ronald fell and injured his two front teeth. About 30 seconds after the accident, just as Ronald was getting up, Mr. Kaar arrived. Ronald testified that the pupils had been instructed to walk in the corridors, but were allowed to run when they reached the black-topped recreation area.

It was the responsibility of the teacher to see that all children cleared the room and then to lock the classroom door so that no one could remain in the classroom unattended. A rule of the school district also required that no children were to be allowed in the school yard without supervision. Another class was scheduled to be on the playground at the same time as the plaintiff's class but apparently had not yet arrived. The undisputed evidence showed that no supervisory personnel were on the playground at the time.

The principal contention on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. There is no question that the liability of the defendant must be based on section 903 of the Education Code (formerly § 1007, without substantial changes as amended Stats. 1959, c. 1727, § 1), which provides that a school district is liable for any judgment against the district on account of injuries to persons or property arising because of the negligence of the district or its officers or employees. Lack of supervision of pupils or improper supervision may constitute negligence on the part of the school district. Tymkowicz v. San Jose Unified School Dist., 151 Cal.App.2d 517, 520, 312 P.2d 388. Defendant concedes that failure to provide supervision may result in actionable negligence, but argues that there is insufficiency of the evidence to show that inadequate supervision was a proximate cause of the injury.

There is no question that Mr. Kaar was an employee of the school district and familiar with the regulation prohibiting unsupervised children on the playground. The standard of care required by the statute is that which a person of ordinary prudence, charged with his duties, would exercise under the same circumstances. Pirkle v. Oakdale Union Grammar School Dist., 40 Cal.2d 207, 253 P.2d 1.

'It was not necessary to prove that the very injury which occurred must have been foreseeable by the school authorities in order to establish that their failure to provide the necessary safeguards constituted negligence. Their negligence is established if a reasonably prudent person would foresee that injury of the same general type would be likely to happen in the absence of such safeguards. (Taylor v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 17 Cal.2d 594, 600 110 P.2d 1044.)' Lehmuth v. Long Beach Unified School Dist., 53 Cal.2d 544, at page 553, 2 Cal.Rptr. 279, at page 285. However, there must be a proximate causal connection between the inadequacy of the supervision and the accident Forgnone v. Salvador Union Elementary School Dist., 41 Cal.App.2d 423, 426, 106 P.2d 932.

The cases cited and relied upon by the plaintiffs are readily distinguishable as the evidence disclosed dangerous conduct of others which exposed the victim to harm or dangerous circumstances under which there was a failure on the part of the school district to exercise ordinary care to stop or prevent the dangerous act or circumstances and there was substantial evidence from which a trier of fact could reasonably infre that the harm would not have resulted had this duty been performed. In the instant case, there is no such evidence. Rather, the uncontroverted evidence leads to the conclusion that supervision would have made no difference as the proximate cause of the accident was the pupil who pushed Ronald. The statute does not impose liability on a school district for injuries arising from the unlawful or wilful misconduct of its students, nor injuries arising from the negligence of a fellow student. Reithardt v. Board of Education, 43 Cal.App.2d 629, 111 P.2d 440, 444. In that case, a fellow pupil suddenly seized the plaintiff who was sitting safely on a ledge and dragged her to the floor. In holding that the accident was not of a type which could have reasonably been anticipated by the school, the appellate court said:

"To hold the school district liable for injuries received in this manner, it is necessary to allege and prove that the district was guilty of some act of commission or omission amounting to negligence. Thus, if experience had demonstrated that a game of football was likely to be attended by rowdyism and injury to spectators the school district might be held bound to anticipate 'such consequences as a reasonably prudent man would anticipate as likely to result therefrom.' Katz v. Helbing, 205 Cal. 629, 634, 271 Pac. 1062, 1064, 62 A.L.R. 825. * * *"

In Wright, by Murphy v. City of San Bernardino School Dist., 121 Cal.App.2d 342, 263 P.2d 25, the plaintiff was a pupil in a physical education class conducted for a select group of high school students who were interested in making the varsity tennis team or improving their work on the team for interscholastic competition. The plaintiff, while running from the gymnasium after participating in a handball game, was struck in the eye by a tennis ball thrown by another pupil engaged in a different game in a different part of the gymnasium. In affirming a judgment of nonsuit, the appellate court pointed out that this was one of those events which could occur equally as well in the presence of the teacher as during her absence.

We think the instant case is on all fours with Conway v. Board of Education of City of New York, 1958, 11 Misc.2d 162, 171 N.Y.S.2d 533. There, the minor plaintiff was standing in a line in the school corridor. The line formed from the desk inside the office of the assistant...