Williams v. Jordan-Elbridge Central School District, 22 N.Y.3d 386 (2013)

A school district’s duty of care to a student generally arises from physical custody and control, and does not extend to situations where a child is injured while waiting for a school bus before the school has assumed custody.

Summary

This case addresses the scope of a school district’s duty of care to students, specifically when a student is injured while waiting for a school bus. The New York Court of Appeals held that the school district did not owe a duty of care to a 12-year-old student with special needs who was struck by a car while attempting to cross the road to catch a bus that had missed her stop. The Court emphasized that the school’s duty arises from physical custody and control of the student, and because the student was never in the school’s custody at the time of the accident, no duty existed. The decision clarifies the limits of the school’s responsibility prior to a student entering their care.

Facts

A. was a 12-year-old student with ADD/ADHD and mild mental retardation, attending Jordan-Elbridge Middle School. Her IEP (Individualized Education Plan) specified that she should be transported to school, even if within walking distance, due to safety concerns. On March 13, 2008, the school bus missed A.’s stop. A., while waiting near the road, attempted to cross to catch the bus after it turned around, and was struck by a car driven by Sharon Weatherstone. The accident occurred before the bus had stopped to pick her up. A.’s mother had instructed her to wait at a specific location until the bus stopped and never to cross the road unescorted.

Procedural History

Plaintiff commenced a personal injury action against Weatherstone and the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District. The District moved for summary judgment, which Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division modified, affirming in part and reversing in part, finding that the District owed a duty based on the bus driver’s actions but dismissing claims based on Vehicle and Traffic Law violations. The Appellate Division granted the District leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District owed a duty of care to A., a student with special needs, who was injured while attempting to catch a school bus that had missed her stop but had not yet taken her into custody.

Holding

No, because the school district’s duty of care arises from physical custody and control, which the district had not yet assumed when the accident occurred.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on the principles established in Pratt v. Robinson, which held that a school’s duty of care stems from physical custody and control of the student. The court distinguished Ernest v. Red Creek Central School District, where a school was held liable for releasing a child into a foreseeably hazardous situation, noting that in this case, A. was never in the school’s custody on the day of the accident. The court rejected the argument that the bus driver’s actions in missing the stop and turning around created a hazardous situation, as A. was in her mother’s custody while waiting for the bus. The court also dismissed the claim that A.’s IEP created a special duty, as it only required regular bus transportation, not additional supervision at the bus stop. The Court stated: “The concept of in loco parentis is the fountainhead of the duty of care owed by a school to its students…” and reiterated that liability exists where a school exercises control over the time, place, and conditions of a child’s release, which was not the case here. Because A. never left her mother’s custody and control, the school district was not liable for her injuries.