Rabito v Hicksville Union Free School District
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
School district liability for a student's field-day slip-and-fall, including negligent supervision, premises safety, and whether primary assumption of risk applies to a compulsory school activity.
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the school district's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment dismissing the complaint, denied the defendant's summary judgment motion, reinstated the complaint, and modified the order accordingly.
The defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the accident occurred so quickly that no supervision could have prevented it, and also failed to establish as a matter of law that primary assumption of risk applied or that the activity was not compulsory.
Background
In May 2018, the infant plaintiff, a fifth-grade student at the defendant's school, allegedly slipped and fell during an organized field-day game on an outdoor field. The plaintiffs alleged that the field was in a dangerous condition and that the school district also negligently supervised the infant plaintiff, causing her injuries.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the defendant school district's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. The appeal from the intermediate order was dismissed because the right to direct appeal ended upon entry of judgment, but the issues were reviewed on the appeal from the judgment under CPLR 5501[a][1] [permits review on appeal from a final judgment of prior nonfinal orders that necessarily affect the judgment].
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that schools have duties both to adequately supervise students and to maintain school property in a reasonably safe condition. It found that the defendant did not meet its prima facie burden on summary judgment because it failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding whether the accident happened so quickly that no amount of supervision could have prevented it. The court also held that the defendant failed to eliminate factual issues concerning the defense of primary assumption of risk and whether the activity was compulsory. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed, the motion for summary judgment was denied, and the complaint was reinstated.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that a school district seeking summary judgment in a student injury case must conclusively negate factual disputes on supervision, premises safety, and any asserted assumption-of-risk defense. Where the record leaves open questions about the suddenness of the accident or whether a school activity was mandatory, dismissal before trial is improper.
A school cannot obtain summary judgment in a student field-day injury case merely by arguing the accident was sudden or assumed as part of play; it must show there are no factual disputes about adequate supervision, safe premises, and whether the student voluntarily participated in the activity.