Mirand v. City of New York
614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263, 84 N.Y.2d 44 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school district has a duty to adequately supervise students and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately caused by a lack of supervision when the school has sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of dangerous conduct that could reasonably be anticipated.
Facts:
- At Harry S. Truman High School, student Virna Mirand accidentally bumped into another student, Donna Webster.
- Webster reacted angrily, cursed Mirand, attempted to kick her, and threatened to kill her.
- Mirand went to the school's security office to report the incident but received no response after knocking twice.
- Mirand then located an art teacher in a hallway, informed her of the altercation, Webster's death threat, and the empty security office.
- After school dismissed, Mirand and her sister, Vivia, were leaving the building when they were confronted by Webster and two male companions.
- Webster struck Virna Mirand with a hammer, and one of Webster's companions stabbed Vivia Mirand in the wrist with a knife.
- No school security officers were present at the school's main entrance during the assault, a time when the school's security plan required them to be posted there.
Procedural Posture:
- The Mirand sisters sued the Board of Education in the Supreme Court of New York (the state's trial court of general jurisdiction).
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the Mirands, finding the Board of Education negligent.
- The Board of Education filed a motion to set aside the jury verdict.
- The Supreme Court granted the Board's motion and dismissed the Mirands' complaint.
- The Mirands, as appellants, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order and reinstated the jury's verdict in favor of the Mirands.
- The Board of Education, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court).
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 district breach its duty of adequate supervision, making it liable for injuries to a student, when one of its teachers is given specific notice of a threat by another student, and the school subsequently fails to take any protective action or have security personnel present at a critical time and location?
Opinions:
Majority - Ciparick, J.
Yes, a school district breaches its duty of adequate supervision under these circumstances. Schools have a duty to supervise students, which is breached if they fail to act on specific knowledge of a foreseeable danger. Here, the jury could rationally conclude that the school district had notice of an imminent danger to Virna Mirand because she explicitly told a teacher about Donna Webster's death threat. The school's failure to take any action in response to this specific notice, combined with the complete absence of security personnel at their assigned posts during dismissal, constituted a breach of its supervisory duty. The subsequent assault was not a spontaneous, unforeseeable act, but a foreseeable consequence of the prior threat, and the school's negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'notice' requirement for negligent supervision claims against schools. It establishes that notice of a specific, imminent threat to a single teacher can be sufficient to put the entire school district on notice, triggering a duty to take reasonable protective measures. The ruling moves the focus from a history of prior similar conduct by an aggressor to the school's awareness of a specific, developing threat. This precedent strengthens the position of student plaintiffs by holding schools accountable not just for their formal security plans, but for the real-time failures of their staff to respond to foreseeable dangers.
