Kush v. City of Buffalo
449 N.E.2d 725, 462 N.Y.S.2d 831, 59 N.Y.2d 26 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school that negligently fails to secure dangerous chemicals from unsupervised access by children will not be relieved of liability when an injury occurs and it is reasonably foreseeable that the chemicals might be stolen by children.
Facts:
- During 1972, the Buffalo Board of Education hired two 15-year-old students to assist the custodial staff at Kensington High School as part of a summer youth program.
- On July 11, while adult employees were on their coffee break, the two unsupervised student employees went to the school’s chemistry laboratory, which, along with its adjacent storeroom, was unlocked.
- The student employees took magnesium powder and potassium nitrate from glass jars, placed the chemicals into plastic sandwich bags, and dropped the bags from a fourth-story window into bushes below, intending to retrieve them after work.
- The infant plaintiff, then eight years old, lived near the school and regularly played on its grounds, including along a trodden path behind the bushes where the chemicals had been dropped.
- The infant plaintiff found the chemicals and, believing them to be sand, began playing with them and with matches he had earlier found.
- The chemicals exploded, and the infant plaintiff sustained second-degree burns to his hands, arms, and face.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs brought a negligence action against the Buffalo Board of Education in a trial court.
- A jury found the Buffalo Board of Education liable for the infant plaintiff’s injuries.
- The Buffalo Board of Education appealed the verdict, and the Appellate Division affirmed the finding of liability.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school's negligent failure to secure dangerous chemicals from unsupervised access by children relieve it of liability for an injury caused by those chemicals, even if the chemicals were intentionally taken by other children, if such an intervening act was reasonably foreseeable?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Cooke
No, a school's negligent failure to secure dangerous chemicals will not relieve it of liability when an injury occurs, as the intervening act of children stealing the chemicals was a foreseeable consequence of the school's breach of duty. The court affirmed the jury's finding of liability against the Buffalo Board of Education. A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to maintain its property in a safe condition, considering the likelihood and severity of injury, the burden to avoid the risk, and the foreseeability of a potential plaintiff's presence. The infant plaintiff's presence on school grounds was foreseeable, even out of session, as the school was in a residential neighborhood and authorities knew children played there. The school maintained dangerous chemicals and recognized the grave risk of unsupervised access, as evidenced by its own regulations requiring chemistry rooms to be locked when not in use and combustible materials stored in locked, fireproof cabinets. The severity of potential injuries from chemical misuse was manifest, and the risk could have been averted with ease and little cost by proper storage. The defendant's breach of duty had two elements: first, failing to adequately supervise its two student employees who were left alone during a coffee break; and second, failing to adequately secure the dangerous chemicals by leaving the laboratory door unlocked, having an unlockable storeroom door, and failing to use a locked, fireproof cabinet. The court determined that the student employees' stealing of the chemicals, though an intentional act, was not a superseding cause. An intervening act will not relieve a defendant of liability when it is a natural and foreseeable consequence of a circumstance created by the defendant's negligence. Specifically, when the intervening, intentional act of another is itself the foreseeable harm that shapes the duty imposed, the defendant who fails to guard against such conduct will not be relieved of liability when that act occurs. The jury's finding that such third-party intervention was reasonably foreseeable was supported by sufficient evidence.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the principle of proximate causation in negligence claims, particularly concerning intervening intentional acts. It establishes that a defendant cannot escape liability for an injury when the intervening act that directly causes the harm is precisely the foreseeable risk the defendant was obligated to prevent. This ruling reinforces the expansive nature of a landowner's duty of care, especially for institutions like schools that house dangerous instrumentalities and are frequented by children, emphasizing the critical importance of adhering to safety regulations. The decision underscores that foreseeability of harm, even from the intentional acts of third parties, can create a non-delegable duty that, if breached, leads to liability.
