16 N.Y.2d 302 (1965)
A school’s duty to supervise students and prevent injuries from snowball throwing extends to controlling or preventing such activity during recreation periods and intervening if dangerous play comes to its notice, but does not require constant, intensive policing to prevent all snowball throwing.
Summary
This case addresses the extent of a school’s duty to supervise students and prevent injuries from snowball throwing. Nuvia Lawes, a student, was injured by a snowball thrown by a fellow pupil on school property after lunch. The Court of Appeals of New York reversed a judgment in favor of Lawes, holding that the school’s duty is to control snowball throwing during recreation periods and intervene in dangerous play if noticed. The court found that the school could not be held liable because there was no notice of particular danger at the time of the incident and expecting constant supervision would be an unreasonable burden.
Facts
Nuvia Lawes, an 11-year-old student, was struck in the eye by a snowball thrown by a fellow pupil while walking from her home to her classroom after lunch. The incident occurred on school property but not during a designated recreation period. The school had a rule against snowball throwing, and Lawes’ teacher had warned students against it.
Procedural History
Lawes sued the Board of Education, and the trial court rendered a judgment of $45,000 in her favor. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment by a divided vote. The Board of Education appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York.
Issue(s)
Whether the Board of Education breached its duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to adequately supervise students and prevent snowball throwing, thus leading to her injury.
Holding
No, because the school’s responsibility is to control or prevent snowball throwing during recreation periods and to take energetic steps to intervene at other times if dangerous play comes to its notice, and the evidence did not establish sufficient notice of a particular danger that would require such intervention in this instance.
Court’s Reasoning
The court acknowledged the difficulty of completely preventing snowball throwing among children, especially when snow is present. It cited the standard of care established in Hoose v. Drumm, stating that teachers must exercise such care as a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances. The court reasoned that a parent would not invariably stop their children from throwing snowballs, and neither should a school. The court emphasized that the facts did not demonstrate any notice of special danger. There was no evidence of prior snowball throwing on the day of the incident, and the testimony regarding a prior incident was weak and disputed. The court noted, “A school is not liable for every thoughtless or careless act by which one pupil may injure another.” The court feared that imposing liability in this case would create an “enlarged risk of liability on a school without showing notice of a particular danger at a particular time,” drawing parallels to cases involving thrown pencils, batted stones, and other unforeseen accidents. The dissenting opinion argued that the injury occurred during a “recreation period” after lunch when supervision was required under the Education Law and that the school failed to reasonably comply with its own regulation against snowball throwing. The dissent also emphasized that the affirmed findings of fact supported a breach of duty by the Board of Education.