Bennett v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bennett v. Board of Education

16 A.D.2d 651, 226 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10633

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 2, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 A.D.2d 651 (Bennett v. Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bennett v. Board of Education, 16 A.D.2d 651, 226 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action brought by plaintiff, an infant, to recover damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of his being struck by a stick that forcibly slipped out of the batter’s hands during a stickball game in a public schoolyard, after school hours, while plaintiff was in the yard watching the game, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 4, 1959, after trial, upon a jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff for $35,000. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and complaint dismissed. Ho questions of fact were considered. In our opinion, there was no warrant for submitting this case to the jury. In after-sehool-hour playgrounds, no duty may be imposed upon defendant to provide supervision over the playground users. Hor may defendant be cast in damages for injuries caused by the act of an intervening third party such as the batter in the stickball game here; the risks of the game were patent and were assumed by the plaintiff as a spectator (Lutzker v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 262 App. Div. 881, affd. 287 N. Y. 822; Kantor v. City of New York, 251 App. Div. 454, 459-456; Diele v. Board of Educ. of City of N .Y., 1 A D 2d 676; Glatstein v. City of New York, 6 A D 2d 824, motion for leave to appeal denied 5 N Y 2d 708). Under the circumstances, it was error to have instructed the jury, over exception and over request for a contrary charge, that it was the duty of the defendant to reasonably supervise the schoolyard if it be found that it permitted the use of the yard as a play site. This attempt by the defendant to help children to escape the perils of playing in the street did not burden it with the duty of supervision over the games played or [652]*652over the equipment which the participants themselves provided (Kantor v. City of New York, supra). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action brought by plaintiff, an infant, to recover damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of his being struck by a stick that forcibly slipped out of the batter’s hands during a stickball game in a public schoolyard, after school hours, while plaintiff was in the yard watching the game, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 4, 1959, after trial, upon a jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff for $35,000. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and complaint dismissed. Ho questions of fact were considered. In our opinion, there was no warrant for submitting this case to the jury. In after-sehool-hour playgrounds, no duty may be imposed upon defendant to provide supervision over the playground users. Hor may defendant be cast in damages for injuries caused by the act of an intervening third party such as the batter in the stickball game here; the risks of the game were patent and were assumed by the plaintiff as a spectator (Lutzker v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 262 App. Div. 881, affd. 287 N. Y. 822; Kantor v. City of New York, 251 App. Div. 454, 459-456; Diele v. Board of Educ. of City of N .Y., 1 A D 2d 676; Glatstein v. City of New York, 6 A D 2d 824, motion for leave to appeal denied 5 N Y 2d 708). Under the circumstances, it was error to have instructed the jury, over exception and over request for a contrary charge, that it was the duty of the defendant to reasonably supervise the schoolyard if it be found that it permitted the use of the yard as a play site. This attempt by the defendant to help children to escape the perils of playing in the street did not burden it with the duty of supervision over the games played or [652]*652over the equipment which the participants themselves provided (Kantor v. City of New York, supra). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 651, 226 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack