Hindsight tends to be instructive as to what could have been done differently, when something goes wrong.  But a recent decision from New York’s First Department shows that courts will not always require teachers under a duty to supervise children to act as “helicopter teachers.”

In Jorge C. v. City of New York, a ten year-old student had gym class in a park next to his school.  After supposedly not seeing his teacher, he and his friends went to a playground area.  While the student was drinking from a water fountain, one of the friends was preparing to throw a water balloon at everyone.  When the student tried to run from his water balloon-wielding friend, he looked back and then hit a pole, which caused him to be injured.  While this was happening, the teacher was cleaning up equipment from the nearby baseball field.

The student’s mother filed suit, on his behalf, against the Board of Education for the absence of adequate supervision.  The Board filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted.  According to the First Department, “[e]ven assuming that plaintiff could demonstrate that the supervision during the gym class was inadequate, the Board established a prima facie case for summary judgment by demonstrating that the accident was the result of sudden and spontaneous acts and that any lack of any supervision was not the proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injury.”

The First Department’s decision in Jorge C. is a recognition that even the closest supervision cannot prevent all injuries, and that “kids will be kids.”  But, it is important to remember that not all injuries are the result of sudden and spontaneous acts.  For entities under a duty to supervise children, it is still not a good idea to leave children unattended.      Thanks to Mike Gauvin for his contribution.  Please email Brian Gibbons with any questions.