New York Law Blog

This past July, in Ramos v. City of New York, a court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in a case involving a minor who was assaulted by his own classmates on school grounds.  Plaintiff Ricardo Ramos is suing the City of New York for personal injuries he sustained outside his school.  In May of 2000, Ramos was kicked and punched by several male peers upon leaving the building during dismissal.

Although a school security guard was standing nearby, he was distracted at the time of the incident and subsequently did not respond immediately to Ramos’ assault.  Ramos had reported previous altercations with his bullies to school staff or security personnel, but “nothing [ever] happened” as a result of his reporting the situation.  In fact, the record indicates that the security guard himself had been warned by “[other] students” that “some kids were outside the school . . . to jump [Ramos],” and that he had even observed three suspicious individuals lurking around the school at the time of the incident but did not do anything about it.  Ramos alleges that his injuries were caused by the City’s negligent supervision of students at the school.  The case is therefore still proceeding.  (See Ramos v. City of New York, 2009 WL 2356877).

New York law recognizes a cause of action in a case where education officials negligently supervise in an assault between students.  The law itself is well-settled:  “In determining wither the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” (Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49 (1994)).  “[W]hether the actions of a school, or its board members, are adequate and reasonable and, if they are not, whether the negligence is the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, are almost always questions of fact” (Garcia v. City of New York, 222 A.D.2d 192, 194 (1st Dept.1996)).

Ramos stands a good chance for winning this lawsuit if a rational jury indeed concludes that based on the record, the school was negligent in failing to take measures to lessen the threat of an assault on a student.  For instance, the school could have ordered the suspicious students to disperse, called for additional security, or contacted the police.  As always, such questions of notice, foreseeability of danger, and the necessity for and adequacy of supervision, are generally for the jury.


Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman: Don’t Settle for Less!