Gleich v. Volpe, 32 N.Y.2d 517 (1973)

A school district is not liable for negligence in placing a school bus stop if it considered all relevant factors and chose a location deemed the safest possible under the circumstances, even if the location presents some visibility issues for drivers.

Summary

This case concerns a six-year-old girl struck by a car after exiting a school bus. Her father sued the driver, Volpe, and the school district, alleging negligence in placing the bus stop. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against the school district, finding no evidence of negligence. The court emphasized that the school district considered multiple factors in placing the stop and chose a location deemed the safest possible, even with visibility limitations. The court affirmed the judgment against Volpe, finding his excessive speed under the wet conditions was negligent.

Facts

Kathy Gleich was struck by a car driven by Philip Volpe after exiting her school bus on Route 28A. The road was hilly and winding. Volpe, familiar with the road, approached the bus stop at 40-50 mph in the rain. He applied his brakes upon seeing the flashing bus lights, causing a brake line hose to burst. Volpe swerved left to avoid the bus and struck Kathy, who was crossing the road. The bus stop’s location was allegedly unsafe due to limited visibility for eastbound drivers.

Procedural History

Henry Gleich, Kathy’s father, sued Volpe and the school district. The jury found both defendants liable, apportioning damages 70% to Volpe and 30% to the school district. The trial judge entered judgment against both for the full amount. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the school district was negligent in placing the bus stop at a location with limited visibility for approaching vehicles.

Holding

No, because there was no evidence that the school district failed to consider all relevant factors in determining the safest possible location for the bus stop under the existing road conditions.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling regarding the school district’s liability. The court emphasized that school districts must consider various factors beyond visibility when establishing bus stops. The school district demonstrated that it considered the safety of the children, the road conditions, and the inability to regulate traffic. The court highlighted testimony that no location along that stretch of road was absolutely safe, and moving the stop could create different hazards. The court stated, “All the factors involved in establishing a bus stop, not merely visibility, must be taken into account.” The court found no evidence the school district failed to consider these factors or that another location would be safer. The court affirmed Volpe’s liability, citing his excessive speed given the wet, winding road conditions, stating that his speed was “undoubtedly excessive for the driving conditions in which he found himself.” The court upheld the trial court’s decision to hold both defendants jointly and severally liable, declining to accept the jury’s apportionment of damages.