SPAULDING v. (And a Third-Party Action.) (2009)

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lebous, J.), entered August 4, 2008 in Broome County, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff Ryann M. Tabor was struck on his right shin by a “hockey ball” in a game of floor hockey during gym class at Chenango Valley Senior High School.   A few days later, problems in the injured leg manifested, ultimately requiring multiple hospitalizations and treatment for deep vein thrombosis.   Tabor and his mother commenced this action for damages against defendant alleging negligent supervision.   In turn, defendant commenced a third-party action against Tabor's friend, Joseph Koch, whose shot sent the ball into Tabor's leg.   Supreme Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and this appeal ensued.

 School districts have a well-established obligation to adequately supervise students in their care and may be held liable where inadequate supervision is the proximate cause of foreseeable injuries (see Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263 [1994];  Doyle v. Binghamton City School Dist., 60 A.D.3d 1127, 1128, 874 N.Y.S.2d 607 [2009] ).   However, “[s]chools are not insurers of safety” (Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d at 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263) and “constant supervision of students at the high school level is not required” (Rose v. Onteora Cent. School Dist., 52 A.D.3d 1161, 1162, 861 N.Y.S.2d 442 [2008] ).   The nature of the duty owed is “to exercise such care ․ as a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances” (Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d at 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];  see Clark v. Susquehanna Val. Cent. School Dist., 19 A.D.3d 926, 927, 797 N.Y.S.2d 608 [2005] ).   To establish negligent supervision, a plaintiff must “demonstrate both that the defendant breached its duty to provide adequate supervision under this standard, and that this failure was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries” (Bellinger v. Ballston Spa Cent. School Dist., 57 A.D.3d 1296, 1297, 871 N.Y.S.2d 432 [2008], lvs. denied 12 N.Y.3d 704, 879 N.Y.S.2d 50, 906 N.E.2d 1084, 12 N.Y.3d 878, 883 N.Y.S.2d 172, 910 N.E.2d 1001 [2009] ).  “Generally, whether a school district failed to fulfill this duty and whether such failure was a proximate cause of the injury are questions of fact” (Oakes v. Massena Cent. School Dist., 19 A.D.3d 981, 982, 797 N.Y.S.2d 640 [2005] ), however, courts do not hesitate to grant summary judgment when appropriate (see e.g. Doyle v. Binghamton City School Dist., 60 A.D.3d at 1128-1129, 874 N.Y.S.2d 607;  Bellinger v. Ballston Spa Cent. School Dist., 57 A.D.3d at 1297-1299, 871 N.Y.S.2d 432;  Rose v. Onteora Cent. School Dist., 52 A.D.3d at 1162, 861 N.Y.S.2d 442;  Foster v. New Berlin Cent. School Dist., 246 A.D.2d 880, 881, 667 N.Y.S.2d 994 [1998] ).

 It is undisputed that a floor hockey game was in progress, supervised by the gym teacher, and Koch was aiming for the goal when his shot accidently hit Tabor.  “[W]hen a spontaneous and unintentional accident happens in just a few moments, we have held that no amount of supervision, however intense, can prevent a resulting injury” (Bellinger v. Ballston Spa Cent. School Dist., 57 A.D.3d at 1298, 871 N.Y.S.2d 432;  see also Doyle v. Binghamton City School Dist., 60 A.D.3d at 1128, 874 N.Y.S.2d 607;  Rose v. Onteora Cent. School Dist., 52 A.D.3d at 1163, 861 N.Y.S.2d 442).   Accordingly, Supreme Court did not err in granting defendant's motion.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

McCARTHY, J.

PETERS, J.P., ROSE, KANE and KAVANAGH, JJ., concur.