Bowles v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bowles v. Board of Education

20 A.D.2d 780, 247 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4161

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 780 (Bowles 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

Bowles v. Board of Education, 20 A.D.2d 780, 247 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment appealed from unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and with leave to plaintiffs to apply to amend their pleadings and bill of particulars, upon terms, and a new trial ordered. In this action for damages for personal injuries and for loss of services, the accident complained of occurred June 15, 1956 in a school lunchroom. The infant plaintiff, age 11% years, with a claimed mental capacity of 5 years at the time, sustained severe injuries. An action was instituted against respondent based upon alleged violations of the Education Law and the Labor Law and which also charged common-law negligence. The bill of particulars served in response to the demand rests chiefly upon allegations of common-law negligence. with, at most, an improper, indirect and unsatisfactory reference to the claimed statutory violations. This may be corrected by the amendments permitted. At the trial the issue of liability, over plaintiffs’ objections, was directed to be tried first. It cannot be said upon this record that there was sufficient proof to entitle plaintiffs to recover and it may be that upon a retrial the result will be the same. However, in light of the infant’s retarded intellectual development and our conclusion that plaintiff was not afforded a sufficient and fair opportunity to present and develop its case, a new trial should be directed. (See Soto v. Correa, 20 A D 2d 694; Gonzalez v. Mackler, 19 A D 2d 229.) Since a violation of statute is claimed also, plaintiff should not have been unduly restricted in the presentation of its proof, nor forestalled by what were in some instances meaningless concessions. (Cf. Warney v. Board of Educ., 290 N. Y. 329.) The conclusion of the court that the infant was not mentally retarded at the time of the accident is completely without support in the record. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment appealed from unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and with leave to plaintiffs to apply to amend their pleadings and bill of particulars, upon terms, and a new trial ordered. In this action for damages for personal injuries and for loss of services, the accident complained of occurred June 15, 1956 in a school lunchroom. The infant plaintiff, age 11% years, with a claimed mental capacity of 5 years at the time, sustained severe injuries. An action was instituted against respondent based upon alleged violations of the Education Law and the Labor Law and which also charged common-law negligence. The bill of particulars served in response to the demand rests chiefly upon allegations of common-law negligence. with, at most, an improper, indirect and unsatisfactory reference to the claimed statutory violations. This may be corrected by the amendments permitted. At the trial the issue of liability, over plaintiffs’ objections, was directed to be tried first. It cannot be said upon this record that there was sufficient proof to entitle plaintiffs to recover and it may be that upon a retrial the result will be the same. However, in light of the infant’s retarded intellectual development and our conclusion that plaintiff was not afforded a sufficient and fair opportunity to present and develop its case, a new trial should be directed. (See Soto v. Correa, 20 A D 2d 694; Gonzalez v. Mackler, 19 A D 2d 229.) Since a violation of statute is claimed also, plaintiff should not have been unduly restricted in the presentation of its proof, nor forestalled by what were in some instances meaningless concessions. (Cf. Warney v. Board of Educ., 290 N. Y. 329.) The conclusion of the court that the infant was not mentally retarded at the time of the accident is completely without support in the record. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 780, 247 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowles-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack