Case Brief (2)

1. Case Caption: Flanagan v. Canton School District, (2009)

2. Nature of the Case: This is a suit alleging plaintiffs injuries were the result of
negligent supervision by the defendant.
3. Procedural Summary: Plaintiffs: Sharon Flanagan, parent and guardian of Brendan
Flanagan
Defendant: Canton Central School District
Supreme Court Decision: The State Supreme Court dismissed the
parents
complaint, ruling in favor of the district.

4. Facts: On October 2004, Brendan Flanagan, a 5th grade student was pushed from
behind by another fifth grade student while in the boys locker room of defendants
middle school. The incident caused Flanagan to hit his head and abdomen on a
nearby locker and bench and to sustain personal injuries that resulted in an
emergency splenectomy. Based on the events, Flanagans mother sued the school
district, alleging that her sons injuries were the result of negligent supervision by the
teacher. Supreme court granted defendants motion for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff filed an appeal. The Appellate Division, third
division disagreed. The court recognized that although a school has a duty to
adequately supervise its students, it is not n insurer of those students safety.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that the school is only liable for foreseeable
injuries sustained by a student that were caused by inadequate supervision. The
school is liable for injuries caused by the intentional act of another student only
where the plaintiff shows that the acts of the fellow student could have been
reasonably anticipated due to the schools prior specific knowledge of the aggressor
students propensity to engage in such conduct.

5. Issue: At issue is whether the defendant could have reasonably anticipated the
pushing incident that resulted in the plaintiffs injury and whether the lack of
supervision in the locker room was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury?

6. Holding and Decision: The Appellate Court reversed the ruling of the state supreme
court. Accordingly, the students were misbehaving on the day of the incident. The
teacher owed a greater duty to supervise the students especially because their
conduct was foreseeable.

7. Comment: As I was reviewing this case, I came to fully understand the paramount
importance of being knowledgeable about the potential liability of school executives
or any individual working within the school environment on issues about student
injury. School personnel typically face risks of being sued by guardians or parents
due to negligence or inadequate supervision of students. While reviewing this case
and looking at the chapter readings on teacher tort liability, I came across the
elements of negligence within the school or classroom context. Does the teacher owe
a duty to the student? Did the student breach that duty? Was the teachers failure to
fulfill her duty the cause of the students injury? Did an injury occur? What
constitutes the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent
person would have exercised in certain situations? In the above case scenario, the PE
teacher was found liable for foreseeable injuries sustained by a student that were
caused by inadequate supervision. It was important to note that said defendant
acknowledged that supervision of the students is the most important part of ensuring
their safety. The teacher lectured the class about stopping its activity and listening to
instructions when directed. It would be rational for the teacher to check students in
the locker room so the latter would know about his presence to deter misbehavior.
But the teacher did not go in the locker room with the students and stayed in the
gym to talk to a student. In this case, he owed a greater duty to supervise students,
especially since their conduct was foreseeable.

Andrea Dagnalan