Osborne v. Olean Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Osborne v. Olean Board of Education

186 A.D.2d 1059, 588 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11680

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1059 (Osborne v. Olean 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

Osborne v. Olean Board of Education, 186 A.D.2d 1059, 588 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: We agree with defendant School District that Supreme Court erred in failing to grant its motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. The infant, an 11-year-old boy, assumed the risk of being struck by a baseball when he "walked in front of’ or "between” his two friends, who were playing catch in an area outside the school that the infant attended. By placing himself between his friends, the infant put himself in danger of being struck by the ball (see, Sutfin v Scheuer, 74 NY2d 697, 698). In the circumstances of this case, the School District breached no duty to protect the infant (see, Marlowe v Rush-Henrietta Cent. School Dist., 167 AD2d 820, affd 78 NY2d 1096). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Sprague, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: We agree with defendant School District that Supreme Court erred in failing to grant its motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. The infant, an 11-year-old boy, assumed the risk of being struck by a baseball when he "walked in front of’ or "between” his two friends, who were playing catch in an area outside the school that the infant attended. By placing himself between his friends, the infant put himself in danger of being struck by the ball (see, Sutfin v Scheuer, 74 NY2d 697, 698). In the circumstances of this case, the School District breached no duty to protect the infant (see, Marlowe v Rush-Henrietta Cent. School Dist., 167 AD2d 820, affd 78 NY2d 1096). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Sprague, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1059, 588 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborne-v-olean-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack