From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hilf v. Massapequa Union Free School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1997
245 A.D.2d 261 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 1, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 21, 1997, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered July 31, 1996, is reversed, on the law, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

The infant plaintiff, a 14-year-old, 7th-grade student at the defendant's Alfred G. Berner Junior High School on the date of the accident, was injured as she was walking towards her bus to go home at the end of the school day. It was raining and conditions were icy. Rather than walk through the parking lot to get to her bus, the plaintiff decided to take a short cut across a snow-covered, grassy area where she slipped and fell.

"It is well established that a school is not the insurer of the safety of the students and it is only under a duty to exercise the degree of reasonable care that a parent of ordinary prudence would have exercised under comparable circumstances ( see, Ohman v. Board of Educ., 300 N.Y. 306)" ( Hauser v. North Rockland Cent. School Dist. No. 1, 166 A.D.2d 553, 554; see also, Ceglia v. Portledge School, 187 A.D.2d 550; Gattyan v. Scarsdale Union Free School Dist. No. 1, 152 A.D.2d 650). In this case, it is clear that the defendant fulfilled its duty of exercising reasonable care by clearing the parking lot of snow and thereby providing the students with a means of safe passage to their buses. To hold that the defendant had a duty to also clear snow from the unpaved, grassy areas of the school grounds would effectively impose a standard of care more nearly that of an insurer rather than of a reasonable and prudent parent ( see, Gattyan v. Scarsdale Union Free School Dist. No. 1, supra, at 652). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been granted ( see also, Kurshals v. Connetquot Cent. School Dist., 227 A.D.2d 593; Ackermann v. Town of Fishkill, 201 A.D.2d 441; Mercado v. Board of Educ., 168 A.D.2d 611; Dello v. State of New York, 105 A.D.2d 571).

Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hilf v. Massapequa Union Free School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1997
245 A.D.2d 261 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Hilf v. Massapequa Union Free School District

Case Details

Full title:WENDI HILF et al., Respondents, v. MASSAPEQUA UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 1, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 261 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 624

Citing Cases

Tomao v. City of New York

In this slip-and-fall case, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a…

RIFF v. STATEN ISLAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

The burden therefore shifts to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact. See. Rosenbloom v. City of New…