Pollard v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pollard v. Board of Education

280 A.D. 1033, 117 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 280 A.D. 1033 (Pollard 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

Pollard v. Board of Education, 280 A.D. 1033, 117 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and orders reversed on the law and facts, without costs of this appeal to either party, and complaint dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: On September 19, 1947, at about 12:30 P.M., the plaintiff, then aged eleven years and a first year junior high school pupil at Barker Central School, sustained injuries when she was tripped and caused to fall by the act of a classmate while crossing over a wire fence erected and maintained by defendant which separated a playground area from a parking and driveway area on the high school premises. The lunch period assigned to junior high pupils was from 12:00 to 12:30 p.m. No teacher was assigned to supervise the high school pupils while [1034]*1034they, were playing on the grounds and playground during any lunch period. Plaintiff had eaten her lunch and gone to the playground lor the remainder o£ the period. In returning to her classroom she followed other pupils, some of whom went under and some over the fence in question. She had placed one foot over the wire and was bringing the other over when a classmate raised the wire so that it struck her foot and threw her to the ground. We find no evidence in the record to support a finding that the fence involved in the accident was negligently constructed or negligently maintained or that the defendant breached its duty to provide adequate supervision of the playground. In our opinion the sole proximate cause of the accident was the unforeseen intervention of plaintiff’s classmate in raising the wire. (See May v. Board of Educ., Town of Mamaroneck, 295 N. Y. 948, and Ohman v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 300 N. Y. 306, 309.) All concur. (Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in a negligence action. The orders denied a motion for a new trial and for a directed verdict.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

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

Judgment and orders reversed on the law and facts, without costs of this appeal to either party, and complaint dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: On September 19, 1947, at about 12:30 P.M., the plaintiff, then aged eleven years and a first year junior high school pupil at Barker Central School, sustained injuries when she was tripped and caused to fall by the act of a classmate while crossing over a wire fence erected and maintained by defendant which separated a playground area from a parking and driveway area on the high school premises. The lunch period assigned to junior high pupils was from 12:00 to 12:30 p.m. No teacher was assigned to supervise the high school pupils while [1034]*1034they, were playing on the grounds and playground during any lunch period. Plaintiff had eaten her lunch and gone to the playground lor the remainder o£ the period. In returning to her classroom she followed other pupils, some of whom went under and some over the fence in question. She had placed one foot over the wire and was bringing the other over when a classmate raised the wire so that it struck her foot and threw her to the ground. We find no evidence in the record to support a finding that the fence involved in the accident was negligently constructed or negligently maintained or that the defendant breached its duty to provide adequate supervision of the playground. In our opinion the sole proximate cause of the accident was the unforeseen intervention of plaintiff’s classmate in raising the wire. (See May v. Board of Educ., Town of Mamaroneck, 295 N. Y. 948, and Ohman v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 300 N. Y. 306, 309.) All concur. (Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in a negligence action. The orders denied a motion for a new trial and for a directed verdict.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D. 1033, 117 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollard-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack