[73 N.Y.2d 931, 537 N.E.2d 617, 539 N.Y.S.2d 291 (1989)]
A school’s provision of security against attacks by third parties is a governmental function, and liability for negligence in performing that function requires a special duty of protection to the plaintiff.
Summary
A teacher injured by an intruder in a schoolyard sued the Board of Education, alleging negligence in security. The New York Court of Appeals reversed a judgment for the teacher, holding that providing security is a governmental function, not a proprietary one. Because the teacher failed to demonstrate a special duty owed to him by the Board of Education, the Board was not liable for negligence. The court emphasized that the teacher’s role in securing the gate was part of the school’s overall security system.
Facts
A New York City public school teacher, along with other teachers, was assigned to supervise a school playground. The playground, enclosed by a chain-link fence, had two gates. The teacher locked one gate but had to stand guard at the other because it was broken. He then broke up a fight and forcibly escorted one of the non-student participants out of the playground. The student returned with a baseball bat and injured the teacher.
Procedural History
The teacher sued the Board of Education, alleging negligence in security. A jury returned a verdict for the teacher, finding him 50% responsible, and awarded damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for the teacher. The Board of Education appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Board of Education’s alleged negligence in providing security at the school playground constituted a proprietary function, for which the Board could be held liable, or a governmental function, which would require a showing of a special duty owed to the teacher.
Holding
No, because providing security against physical attacks by third parties is a governmental function involving policymaking, and no liability arises absent a special duty of protection. The teacher failed to establish that the Board of Education had assumed a special duty to him.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the teacher’s claim was based on the inadequacy of the school’s security system, which is a governmental function. The court cited prior cases establishing that providing security against third-party attacks is a governmental function involving policymaking, and liability requires a special duty of protection. The court distinguished this case from situations involving proprietary functions, such as failure to repair steps. The court stated that the teacher’s station at the gate was part of the security system: “plaintiff’s own testimony established that his station at the schoolyard’s north gate was in accordance with prior instruction, for the security of the school children, when the gate could not be locked.” The court likened the situation to a failure to maintain a key control system, which would also be considered a governmental function related to overall security. The court emphasized it was deciding the case solely on the terms presented regarding governmental and proprietary functions.