Boys will be boys.
Leave a group a high school students unsupervised in a school cafeteria and a food fight is inevitable. But is the educational institution liable for any injuries that occur, particularly if there has been prior notice of this type of conduct? That was the question reviewed by the courts in the case of Schirmer v. Board of Education of Spencerport Center School District.
In that particular dispute, a young male teen--Schirmer--was seriously injured when accidentally struck in the eye with a food object during the course of an "unsupervised 'honors' study hall." We are informed that two other students--Mannix and DiRoma--were propelling "beef jerky" (a dehydrated meat) at one another when the injury occurred. (DiRoma was the jerky thrower, Mannix was the intended jerky recipient, while Schirmer was the jerky victim.)
While the Monroe County Supreme Court dismissed the injured boy's case in its entirey, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, did not completely agree with that outcome and reinstated the lawsuit.
Since the appellate court was of the opinion that "jerky throwing" was not an "inherently dangerous" activity, it upheld the dismissal against young Mannix since he was only the intended recipient of the food product (and did not cause the injury). The school, on the other hand, was skewered for failing to adequately supervise its young charges. Here was the AD's take on the case:
It is undisputed that the two students were throwing the beef jerky for fun, and that plaintiff's son was not the intended target. It is also undisputed that Mannix's son had the requisite "honors" pass to attend the study hall, and that DiRoma's son did not, and therefore that DiRoma's son should not have been present in the cafeteria. We conclude that the activity engaged in by the two students was not "so inherently dangerous that mere participation therein [was] negligence" ... Thus, Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Mannix seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against him.
The court erred, however, in granting the motion of the Board of Education of the Spencerport Central School District (defendant) seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against it, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Defendant asserted that it was not negligent in its supervision of the students attending the honors study hall, and that, in any event, the action of the students involved was the sole proximate cause of the injuries sustained by plaintiff's son. We conclude, however, that defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ... The evidence submitted by defendant in support of its motion established that there were at times 50 or more students attending the honors study hall; the study hall was not supervised by an adult; the study hall was only periodically monitored by an adult to determine whether there were students present who did not have the requisite "honors" pass; defendant had notice of three prior incidents wherein objects were thrown by students attending the study hall without the requisite "honors" pass; and defendant had notice of one prior incident wherein a student was injured by another student while attending the unsupervised study hall. That evidence raises triable issues of fact whether defendant adequately supervised the students attending the study hall and whether the injuries sustained by plaintiff's son were a foreseeable result of the "absence of adequate supervision" ....
No adult supervision, despite a history of prior incidents? Now how jerky was that?
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision in Schirmer v. Board of Educ. of Spencerport Cent. School Dist., please click on the following link: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_08574.htm
For a copy of a "jerky" fact sheet released by the United States Department of Agriculture, please click on the following link: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/jerky_and_food_safety/index.asp