A high school student who was a minor [Student] committed suicide while at home. Earlier that day [Student] had been [1] been "discharged" from school and [2] suspended for disciplinary infractions. Alleging negligence, breach of its in loco parentis duty, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful death, Student's mother [Parent] sued the School District, BOCES and certain named school officials [Defendants].
Parent, among other things alleged that Student committed suicide as a result of the failure of Defendants to provide proper supervision, bullying endured by Student, and improperly suspending Student. Supreme Court granted branches of Defendants' separate motions for summary judgment, dismissing certain causes of action insofar as asserted against each of them.
Parent appealed the Supreme Court's ruling but the Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court's decision insofar as appealed from. The court explained that under the doctrine of acting in loco parentis with respect to its minor students, a school district owes a special duty to such students themselves and it "will be liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision."
Noting that schools are not insurers of the safety of their students and the duty they owe to their students derives from their physical custody and control over the students, the Appellate Division opined that a school's custodial duty ceases once the student has passed out of the school's orbit of authority and the parent or guardian is perfectly free to reassume control over the child's protection, citing Vernali v Harrison Cent. School Dist., 51 AD3d 782.
Although "[g]enerally, a school cannot be held liable for injuries that occur off school property and beyond the orbit of its authority," the Appellate Division's decision notes that a school's duty to its students continues and is breached if the student is released without further supervision into "a forseeably hazardous setting it had a hand in creating."
Opining that Defendants had established "their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the [Student] committed suicide when he was not on school property and no longer in their custody or under their control" and that the Defendants did not release the Student "into a foreseeably hazardous situation they had a hand in creating."
The Appellate Division's decision concludes by observing that [1] Defendants established their prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not assume a separate special duty of care to protect Student and guard against him committing suicide and [2] Defendants lacked sufficient notice of the possibility of the Student's committing suicide to be liable for a breach of any such special duty.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.