Wood v. Watervliet City School District
30 A.D.3d 663, 815 N.Y.S.2d 360 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school district has a duty to adequately supervise its students and can be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately caused by the absence of adequate supervision, especially when the school has actual or constructive notice of a student's prior similar conduct involving physical aggression.
Facts:
- On June 5, 2002, Brian W. Wood, a fifth-grade student at Watervliet Elementary School, sustained a fractured nose and lost a tooth when he was punched several times, knocked to the floor, and kicked by Jamal Leaks, another fifth-grade student.
- The incident occurred during a social studies class that was being supervised by Cherril Young, a substitute teacher.
- Jamal Leaks had an ignominious disciplinary record, including 10 reported disciplinary matters in the five months prior to the incident, several involving fighting and other physical acts, such as throwing a chair, fighting in the cafeteria, pushing adults, and engaging in three fights on a school bus.
- Prior to the assault, Leaks was bullying or verbally harassing a student in the class who was a friend of Wood, creating a commotion.
- Cherril Young, the substitute teacher, instructed Leaks to cease his conduct, but Leaks did not stop as Young responded to a knock on the classroom door.
- Young walked through the doorway and remained outside the classroom for about three minutes, leaving only an arm inside the room.
- During Young's absence, Wood allegedly told Leaks to stop harassing his friend, to which Leaks responded with threats against Wood, and the boys continued to argue.
- As Wood turned to sit in his seat, Leaks commenced punching him in the face.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Brian W. Wood and his parents) commenced an action in Supreme Court (the trial court) against defendant Watervliet City School Dist., alleging that Wood’s injuries resulted from negligent supervision.
- The Supreme Court (Teresi, J.) granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.
- Plaintiffs appealed this judgment to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
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 have a triable issue of fact regarding negligent supervision and proximate cause when a student with a documented history of physical aggression injures another student during class, and the substitute teacher briefly leaves the classroom while a disruptive incident involving the aggressive student is ongoing?
Opinions:
Majority - Lahtinen, J.
Yes, a school district does have a triable issue of fact regarding negligent supervision and proximate cause, meaning the case should proceed to trial because there is sufficient evidence to raise questions about the foreseeability of Leaks' assaultive conduct and whether the teacher's actions during an ongoing disruptive incident proximately caused Wood's injuries. The court affirmed that while a school is not an insurer of safety, it has a duty to adequately supervise its students and is liable for foreseeable injuries caused by inadequate supervision. Foreseeability of intentional harm generally requires actual or constructive notice of prior similar conduct by the student. Here, Leaks' extensive disciplinary record, which included numerous recent physical acts, amply raised a triable issue regarding the foreseeability that he would engage in assaultive conduct. As to causation, evidence showed Leaks was bullying a student, which created a commotion that Young (the teacher) was aware of before she effectively left the classroom for about three minutes. The court concluded that factual issues existed regarding whether the chain of events that followed the teacher's decision to leave the ongoing incident unsupervised was a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the school's alleged negligence. The court dismissed the defendant's argument that the incident happened too quickly, emphasizing that the issue is the circumstances leading up to the conduct. It also found no merit in the claim that Wood voluntarily entered into a physical altercation, stating that words spoken to curtail bullying are not an invitation to assault.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces that summary judgment is often inappropriate in school negligent supervision claims when the aggressor student has a documented history of violence or disruption. It highlights that both foreseeability (based on prior notice of similar conduct) and proximate cause (linking the school's alleged negligence to the injury) are typically questions of fact for a jury to decide, especially when a teacher's actions during an active incident are called into question. The ruling also clarifies that attempting to de-escalate bullying is not considered an invitation to an altercation, protecting victims from being blamed for their own assault.
