Bell v. Board of Education, 90 N.Y.2d 944 (1997)
When a defendant’s negligence creates a foreseeable risk of harm, the fact that the ultimate injury was caused by the intentional criminal act of a third party does not automatically absolve the defendant of liability.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the sexual assault of a sixth-grade student was not unforeseeable as a matter of law. The student was left unsupervised at a school-sponsored event, and the court found that a jury could reasonably conclude that the lack of supervision created a foreseeable risk of such violence. This case highlights the principle that a defendant can be held liable for negligence even when an intervening criminal act directly causes the harm, provided that the criminal act was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence.
Facts
A sixth-grade student (plaintiff) attended a drug awareness fair in a park with her class, which was supervised by teachers and aides. The teacher gave the plaintiff permission to leave the park with friends for lunch at a nearby pizzeria. Upon returning to the park, the plaintiff discovered her class had already left. While walking home alone, she was accosted by other students, taken to a house, and sexually assaulted for 21 ½ hours. The perpetrators were later arrested and convicted of first-degree rape.
Procedural History
The plaintiff sued the Board of Education, alleging negligence in its supervision of students. A jury found in favor of the plaintiff. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the complaint, stating that the rape was an unforeseeable superseding event that absolved the defendant of liability. The New York Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division’s decision and remitted the case, finding that the intervening act of rape was not unforeseeable as a matter of law.
Issue(s)
Whether the intervening criminal act of rape was an unforeseeable event that absolved the defendant Board of Education from liability for negligent supervision of the plaintiff.
Holding
No, because a rational jury could have determined that the sexual assault was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s alleged lack of supervision. The case was remitted for consideration of issues raised but not determined on appeal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that while third-party criminal acts can sever the causal connection between a defendant’s negligence and a plaintiff’s injuries, this is not always the case. Criminal intervention can be a “reasonably foreseeable” consequence of the circumstances created by the defendant. The court emphasized that foreseeability is generally a question for the fact-finder (i.e., the jury). The court cited Kush v. City of Buffalo, 59 N.Y.2d 26, 33, stating, “[w]hen 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 court found that the jury could have reasonably concluded that the purpose of school supervision was to protect vulnerable children from acts of violence, and the lack of supervision foreseeably led to the plaintiff’s assault. This decision underscores the importance of adequate supervision and the potential liability for negligence when that supervision fails to protect against foreseeable criminal acts. The court emphasized that it could not say, as a matter of law, that the rape was unforeseeable; this determination was properly within the province of the jury. The court did not elaborate on what evidence the jury considered when determining foreseeability, but emphasized that evidence should be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff because they prevailed at trial.