Ernest v. Red Creek Cent. Sch. Dist., 93 N.Y.2d 664 (1999)

A school district may be liable for injuries to a student released into a foreseeably hazardous setting partly of the school’s making, and a county can be liable for failing to address a known dangerous road condition affecting schoolchildren.

Summary

A nine-year-old student was severely injured after being struck by a truck while crossing a county road after school. The plaintiff sued the school district, county, and town, alleging negligence. The New York Court of Appeals held that the school district could be liable for releasing the student before buses departed, creating a hazardous condition. The Court also found the county could be liable for failing to act on repeated notices of a dangerous road condition for schoolchildren. The Town, however, was not liable because it did not own or control the road.

Facts

Christopher Knopp, a nine-year-old student, was dismissed from school and attempted to cross Westbury Road, a Wayne County highway. He was hit by a truck and severely injured. Students walking to the village west of the school had to walk along the road’s shoulder and cross the highway, as there was no sidewalk on the school side of the road. The school superintendent had previously requested the County extend the sidewalk for safety reasons. On the day of the accident, students were released before the buses departed, contrary to school policy. Christopher crossed behind a bus, and his view was obstructed when he was hit by a truck traveling in the opposite direction.

Procedural History

The plaintiff sued the driver, the Red Creek School District, Wayne County, and the Town of Wolcott. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the School District and the Town, but not the County. The Appellate Division modified, granting summary judgment to the County as well. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the School District was negligent in releasing walking students before the school buses departed, contrary to established policy, thereby creating a hazardous condition that led to the student’s injury.

2. Whether Wayne County was negligent in failing to respond to repeated notices of the need for sidewalks or traffic control devices on Westbury Road to protect schoolchildren.

3. Whether the Town of Wolcott had a duty to ensure the safety of pedestrians on Westbury Road.

Holding

1. Yes, because a jury could find that the School District breached its duty of care by releasing Christopher before the buses left, creating a foreseeable risk of harm. 2. Yes, because the County had received repeated notices of the dangerous conditions for schoolchildren and failed to take action. 3. No, because the Town did not own or control the road and had not affirmatively undertaken a duty to maintain it.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the School District had a duty to continue exercising control and supervision if releasing a child posed a foreseeable risk of harm. Citing McDonald v Central School Dist. No. 3, the court emphasized that a school’s duty continues when a student is released into a potentially hazardous situation, especially if the hazard is partly of the school district’s own making. The school’s policy of releasing walkers after the buses showed it recognized the enhanced risk. The Court distinguished Pratt v Robinson because in that case, the child was released to a safe location. Here, the release was into a “foreseeably hazardous setting partly of the School District’s making.”

Regarding the County’s liability, the Court cited Alexander v Eldred, stating that a municipality can be liable if its failure to install a traffic control device was negligent and a contributing cause of the accident, and there was no reasonable basis for the inaction. The Court found the superintendent’s letters were sufficient notice of the hazardous conditions. The Court distinguished Weiss v Fote, which provides qualified immunity for decisions made by a public planning body after considering the risk, because the County’s prior study did not address the risk to schoolchildren crossing the road. The Court also found a triable issue on proximate cause, stating that a jury could infer that extending the sidewalk would have led to additional safety measures, including a crosswalk, thus reducing the risk to students. The Court noted, “Proximate cause is a question of fact for the jury where varying inferences are possible.”

Regarding the Town, the Court found that the town did not own or control Westbury Road and never assumed a duty to maintain it. Citing Silver v Cooper, the Court stated, “Although sections of the Vehicle and Traffic Law [and General Municipal Law] give towns certain rights with respect to all roads, including County roads, none of the statutes establish an affirmative duty of the Town to maintain any County road.”