Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffliabilityappealverdict

Related Cases

Surette v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 231 F.Supp.2d 260
View Case »
Schmidt v. Coogan, 181 Wash.2d 661, 335 P.3d 424
View Case »
Crotteau v. Karlgaard, 48 Wis.2d 245, 179 N.W.2d 797
View Case »
Application of President and Directors of Georgetown College, Inc., 331 F.2d 1000, 9 A.L.R.3d 1367, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 80
View Case »
Penn Harris Madison School Corp. v. Howard, 861 N.E.2d 1190, 216 Ed. Law Rep. 931
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Florence v. Goldberg, 44 N.Y.2d 189, 375 N.E.2d 763, 404 N.Y.S.2d 583

Facts

On November 14, 1967, Darryle Davis, a 6 ½-year-old infant, was struck by a taxicab while crossing Ralph Avenue to return home from Public School 191 in Brooklyn. A crossing guard had been regularly assigned to the intersection but was absent on the day of the accident due to illness. The police department was notified of the absence but failed to assign a substitute or inform the school principal, leading to the infant's injury.

Upon receiving notification of the crossing guard's unavailability for duty, the police department neither assigned a patrolman to substitute for the crossing guard nor notified the school principal of the absence of a crossing guard at the Park Place and Ralph Avenue intersection.

Issue

Whether a municipality may be held liable for injuries suffered by an infant struck by an automobile while attempting to negotiate a school crossing where the municipality's police department, having voluntarily assumed a duty to supervise school crossings, negligently omitted to station a guard at one of the designated crossings.

This appeal raises the issue whether a municipality may be held liable for injuries suffered by an infant struck by an automobile while attempting to negotiate a school crossing where the municipality's police department, having voluntarily assumed a duty to supervise school crossings an assumption upon which the infant's parent relied negligently omitted to station a guard at one of the designated crossings.

Rule

A municipality whose police department voluntarily assumes a duty to supervise school crossings may be held liable for its negligent omission to provide a guard at a designated crossing or to notify the school principal or take other appropriate action to safeguard the children.

We hold that a municipality whose police department voluntarily assumes a duty to supervise school crossings the assumption of that duty having been relied upon by parents of school children may be held liable for its negligent omission to provide a guard at a designated crossing or to notify the school principal or take other appropriate action to safeguard the children.

Analysis

The court found that the police department had a special duty to supervise school crossings, which was relied upon by the parents of school children. The absence of a crossing guard on the day of the incident constituted a breach of that duty, as the police department failed to take necessary actions to ensure the safety of the children. The jury determined that the city was negligent in its duty to supervise the crossing, leading to the infant's injury.

The department's failure to perform this duty placed the infant plaintiff in greater danger than he would have been had the duty not been assumed, since the infant's mother would not have had reason to rely on the protection afforded her child and would have been required, in her absence, to arrange for someone to accompany her child to and from school.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding the city liable for the infant's injuries due to the police department's failure to provide a crossing guard.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Who won?

The infant's mother prevailed in the case because the court found that the city had a duty to provide a crossing guard and failed to do so, resulting in the injury of her child.

The jury returned a verdict against Lilly and New York City, apportioning the liability between them in the ratio of 25% against Lilly and 75% against the city.

You must be