Case ID: ad_222/html/0284-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Howard B. Gregory, an Infant over the Age of Fourteen Years, by Forrest W. Gregory, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Board of Education of the City of Rochester, New York, Appellant.
    Fourth Department,
    December 30, 1927.
    Schools — liability for injury to student — explosion in chemical laboratory — error to charge that defendant might be held liable if it had omitted to prescribe suitable course of study in chemistry.
    The plaintiff, a student in one of the schools of the defendant, was injured by an explosion in a chemical laboratory. It was the duty of the defendant to use reasonable care in keeping and distributing chemicals that were dangerous in combination, and the ease was properly submitted to the jury on that ground.
    It was error, however, for the court to charge that the defendant might be held hable if it omitted to prescribe a suitable course of study in chemistry, since it appears that there was in actual use in the laboratory a syllabus prepared by the Board of Regents, and, furthermore, the experiment which the plaintiff was conducting was unauthorized.
    Appeal by the defendant'from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Monroe on the 13th day of June, 1927, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 2d day of November, 1927.
    This action is based on an explosion in the chemical department of the Rochester Shop School, which caused the injuries for which the plaintiff is seeking to recover damages.
    
      Pierson & Winchell [Frederick T. Pierson of counsel], for the appellant.
    
      Howard F. Barnes [Claude T. Taggart of counsel], for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

It was the duty of the defendant to use reasonable care in the keeping and distribution of chemicals potentially dangerous in combination. The case was properly submitted to the jury on that ground. (Herman v. Board of Education, 234 N. Y. 196; Williams v. Board of Trustees, Town of Eaton, 204 App. Div. 566; Van Dyke v. City of Utica, 203 id. 26; Ford v. Board of Education, 202 id. 826; Jaked v. Board of Education, 198 id. 113.)

We think the trial court erred, however, in charging the jury in substance that defendant might be held liable if it had omitted to prescribe a suitable course of study in chemistry. It appeared without dispute that there was in actual use in the laboratory a syllabus prepared by the Board of Regents. Whether it was formally prescribed and adopted by defendant is immaterial. The experiment which plaintiff- was conducting was unauthorized and was no part of the course of study in actual use. If it be conceded that defendant had omitted formally to prescribe and adopt a course of study, such omission had no causal connection with the injury.

The judgment appealed from should be reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

All concur, Sears, J., in result only. Present — Hubbs, P. J., Clark, Sears, Crouch and Sawyer, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.