Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Madeline MORR, et al., respondents, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al., appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated October 28, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The infant plaintiff allegedly was injured while playing at the Mitchell Field Athletic Complex when she slipped and fell into an uncovered steeplechase pit during a track meet. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.
The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, shifting the burden to the plaintiffs to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). The plaintiffs did so (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642). The defendants owed a duty of care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition (see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868). This duty included consideration of the known propensities of children to roam, climb, and play (see Collentine v. City of New York, 279 N.Y. 119, 17 N.E.2d 792). A question of fact exists as to whether the defendants breached their duty of maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition by failing to cover the steeplechase pit with the available specially-designed wooden cover. Moreover, schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision (see Reed v. Pawling Cent. School Dist., 245 A.D.2d 281, 664 N.Y.S.2d 483; Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263). There is a question of fact as to whether the seven-year-old infant plaintiff was properly supervised.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 24, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)