24 THE QUEENS COURIER • OCTOBER 25, 2018 FOR BREAKING NEWS VISIT WWW.QNS.COM
JURIOUS GEORGE Q: My son George was a fifth-grade student. During a lunch recess, at the
school playground, George climbed on top of the monkey bars and, from the top of the
bars, successfully did a cartwheel into a handstand followed by a swinging dismount to
the ground. On a second attempt, George lost his balance while in the handstand
position and was injured when he fell to the ground. Although three school lunch aides
were present and providing supervision, none of the lunch aides had intervened.
The aides claim that none of them observed any part of George’s conduct.
The head one says that, had she seen what George was doing, she would have
intervened and sent him to the principal’s office. She acknowledges that my George
was a known trickster when on the playground, who had been reprimanded in the past
for inappropriate use of playground equipment. She admits that he needed more
attention.
The school district has some surveillance footage. It shows George’s second
attempt at the cartwheel-to-handstand maneuver.
A: A school cannot reasonably be expected continuously to supervise and
control every movement and activity; a school is not an insurer of its students’ safety.
All the same, the school is under a duty to provide adequate supervision to those in its
charge, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the
absence of adequate supervision. In carrying out its duty, the school is obligated to
exercise such care as a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable
circumstances.
Regarding the surveillance footage, your attorney will argue the district was
clearly on notice of possible litigation and, thus, under an obligation to preserve any
evidence that might be needed for future litigation. Accordingly, the district had an
obligation to preserve all of the moments leading up to George’s accident, during which
the monitors should have woken up. If the district destroyed the footage before
George’s second attempt, then seemingly the Court should give the jury a ‘negative
inference charge’ with respect to this unavailable footage.