Franklin Township School District (mostly) Immune from Lawsuit for Playground Personal Injury
Last month, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, released its decision in Ackerman v. Franklin Township Board of Education, a case involving a personal injury lawsuit arising out of a playground injury. The plaintiff was a sixth-grader who was riding the merry-go-round at recess. She told the other kids not to move it because she was getting down to tie her shoe, but as she was getting down, another girl ran over and started pushing the merry-go-round. The plaintiff fell off and broke her arm.
The school nurse who iced and immobilized the girl’s arm while waiting for her mother to arrive complained that the merry-go-round was dangerous because kids didn’t follow the rules. The nurse reported eight such merry-go-round injuries in the last year, a fact she had made known to the superintendent and school safety committee.
The plaintiff sued the school district, alleging that the merry-go-round was a nuisance, a hazard, that it was dangerous and unsafe, and that the school district had notice of a “palpably unreasonable” dangerous condition on its property. The lawsuit also alleged negligent supervision of the students as a cause of the accident.
The School Board moved for summary judgment to dismiss the case based on the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA). This law gives government entities, such as states, townships and school districts, immunity from being sued for negligence except in certain situations. In most cases, government entities are immune from acts of ordinary negligence; there must be some greater misconduct to hold a public entity liable, such as proving that the defendant’s conduct was “palpably unreasonable.”
Before trial, the judge granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiff did not establish a dangerous condition or that the defendant’s conduct was “palpably unreasonable.”
Negligence – No
On appeal, the court upheld the dismissal of the negligence action. The appellate court noted that the TCA gives broad immunity to public entities; immunity is the general rule, and liability is the exception. The main problem with the plaintiff’s negligence case was that the merry-go-round itself did not represent a dangerous condition; the danger was not a physical condition of the property but rather had to do with the activities conducted on it. Put simply, merry-go-rounds are not inherently dangerous products, although they can be misused in an unsafe manner.
Negligent Supervision – Maybe
Although the court of appeals agreed the merry-go-round did not represent a dangerous condition, there is still the question of negligent supervision. A school clearly has a duty to supervise students at recess. Should a teacher have been designated to supervise the merry-go-round? Were the teachers on playground duty negligent in their supervision? Were safety rules for the merry-go-round ever discussed with students or staff or routinely enforced? These are all questions of fact for a jury to decide at trial, so it was not appropriate to dismiss the negligent supervision claim as a matter of law. While upholding the dismissal of the plaintiff’s negligence claims, the appeals court reinstated the negligent supervision claim for trial.
