A New York state appeals court has affirmed a lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment to a school district in a case in which a plaintiff, who was injured in a floor hockey game, alleged that the district was responsible for the plaintiff’s injury.
In siding with the school district, the appeals court also held that the trial court should have sided with the defendant on the plaintiff’s claim that there had been a negligent instruction by the coach in defining high-sticking.
In short, it found that it wouldn’t have mattered whether the coach of a floor hockey team had correctly advised his students that high-sticking was swinging the stick about the knees, since the student inflicting the injury swung his stick about the waist, which was the proscribed threshold issued by the coach.
Plaintiff Sean Bramswig was a 12-year-old seventh grader at the defendant Pleasantville Middle School at the time of the incident. Bramswig was participating in a floor hockey game when a teammate struck him in the mouth with his hockey stick.
The court noted that there “is no evidence that the plaintiff was intentionally hit with the stick. At his deposition, the plaintiff testified that a teammate had lifted his stick above his waist prior to striking him in the mouth with the stick. The plaintiff’s gym teacher testified at his deposition that he had instructed the students prior to the commencement of the game, as well at the beginning of each gym class, that the practice of ‘high-sticking,’ which he described as lifting the hockey stick above one’s waist, was prohibited while playing floor hockey.”
In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants maintained that they had provided “adequate supervision and instruction to the plaintiff and other participants regarding the floor hockey game.”
The plaintiff countered that there was “a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff had been adequately instructed as to what constituted a violation of the prohibited practice of the ‘high-sticking’ rule, i.e., whether the rule prohibited a player from lifting the hockey stick above his or her waist, or above his or her knees.”
While the trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, it did not make that ruling based on the fact that there had not been a negligent instruction, as the defendant had argued.
The court was more agreeable to the defendant’s argument.
“Even if proper instruction consisted of advice that hockey sticks should not be lifted above the knees, as opposed to above the waist, the person who struck the plaintiff lifted his stick above his waist, thus violating the rule regardless of the interpretation of the rule,” wrote the court. “Accordingly, the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries was not the defendants’ alleged failure to issue a proper instruction regarding the act of “high-sticking” (see generally Paragas v Comsewogue Union Free School Dist., 65 AD3d 1111, 885 N.Y.S.2d 128; cf. Mei Kay Chan v City of Yonkers, 34 AD3d 540, 824 N.Y.S.2d 380).
“Consequently, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing so much of the first cause of action as was premised upon negligent instruction (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324, 501 N.E.2d 572, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853, 476 N.E.2d 642, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316).
Sean Bramswig, etc. v. Pleasantville Middle School, et al.; S.Ct.N.Y., App. Div. 2d Dept.; 2009-00529, 2009 NY Slip Op 9603; 891 N.Y.S.2d 160; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9411; 12/22/09
Attorneys of Record: (for appellants) Henderson & Brennan (Congdon, Flaherty, O’Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y. [Christine Gasser], of counsel). (for respondent) Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success, N.Y. (Christopher Simone and Kyriakoula Fatsis of counsel).
