Wilson v. Vestal Central School District
34 A.D.3d 999, 825 N.Y.S.2d 159 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school district may be liable for injuries resulting from the intentional acts of a fellow student if the school had prior knowledge or notice of the student's dangerous conduct, making the injury reasonably foreseeable. A documented history of prior conflicts and threats can create a triable issue of fact regarding the adequacy of the school's supervision.
Facts:
- Beginning at least two years prior to December 1996, Kristy Knapp, a student, engaged in a pattern of aggressive and confrontational behavior toward fellow student Adria Wilson.
- Knapp's conduct included stealing Wilson's textbooks and eyeglasses, destroying her test papers, screaming at her in hallways, and making prank phone calls to her home.
- Wilson's parents repeatedly informed school teachers and administrators about Knapp's bullying behavior during meetings.
- In August 1996, Wilson's parents met with high school guidance counselor Martin Murphy, informed him of the history between the two students, and specifically requested their schedules be arranged to keep them apart.
- Despite the request, the school scheduled Wilson and Knapp for the same lunch period.
- In November 1996, approximately one month before the injury, Knapp confronted Wilson in a classroom, pushed her into a corner, and threatened her to fight.
- Wilson reported this specific classroom confrontation to counselor Murphy the following day.
- In December 1996, while in the school cafeteria, Knapp pulled a chair out from under Wilson as she was attempting to sit, causing Wilson to fall and sustain injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Adria Wilson and her parents commenced an action for negligent supervision against Vestal Central School District in the Supreme Court of Broome County, a New York trial court.
- The School District filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the complaint against it.
- The Supreme Court (trial court) denied the School District's motion for summary judgment.
- The School District, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Third Judicial Department, an intermediate appellate 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's alleged prior knowledge of a student's persistent bullying and aggressive conduct toward a specific classmate create a triable issue of fact as to whether a subsequent injury was a foreseeable result of negligent supervision, thereby precluding summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardona, P.J.
Yes. A school district's prior knowledge of a student's persistent bullying creates a triable issue of fact regarding foreseeability and negligent supervision. The court reasoned that while schools are not insurers of student safety and cannot anticipate every spontaneous act, their duty to supervise is heightened when they have notice of a particular danger. Here, the plaintiffs presented substantial evidence that the Vestal Central School District had notice of Knapp's ongoing aggressive conduct toward Wilson, including the parents' specific meeting with the guidance counselor and Wilson's report of a direct threat one month before the injury. This cumulative knowledge was sufficient to create a question of fact for a jury as to whether Knapp's act of pulling the chair was reasonably foreseeable and whether the school's supervision was adequate. Therefore, denying the school's motion for summary judgment was proper.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that a school's duty of supervision is not generic but is informed by specific knowledge of potential harm. It clarifies that a documented history of bullying, especially when communicated directly to school officials, is sufficient to defeat a school's summary judgment motion by creating a jury question on foreseeability. The case establishes that schools cannot easily dismiss student-on-student injuries as 'spontaneous acts' when there is a known history of antagonism. This precedent makes it more difficult for school districts to escape liability at an early stage of litigation in cases involving persistent bullying.
