Title: Wire v. Williams

State: minnesota

Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court

Document:

133 N.W.2d 840 (1965) Diane WIRE, a minor, by William Wire, her guardian ad litem, Appellant, v. Patricia WILLIAMS, Respondent. No. 39475. Supreme Court of Minnesota. March 5, 1965. *841 Burkard & Martell, Minneapolis, for appellant. Mordaunt, Walstad, Cousineau & McGuire, Minneapolis, for respondent. THOMAS GALLAGHER, Justice. Action for personal injuries sustained May 8, 1961, by Diane Wire, a minor of the age of 8 years 11 months, claimed to have been caused by the negligence of defendant, Patricia Williams. The action was brought by Diane's father, William Wire, as her guardian ad litem. At the close of plaintiff's case, on defendant's motion the court directed a verdict in defendant's favor. This appeal is from an order denying plaintiff's subsequent motion for a new trial and from the judgment entered for defendant. The sole issue presented is whether the evidence would have sustained a finding that Diane's injuries were the proximate result of defendant's negligence, or whether as a matter of law it established that they were due to an unavoidable accident. On May 8, 1961, Diane was a second-grade pupil at the Wood Lake Elementary School in Richfield. At that time defendant was engaged as a second-grade teacher in this school, one of her duties being to supervise a second-grade class in physical education in which Diane was enrolled. At about 2:30 p.m. on that date, Diane was engaged in rope jumping under defendant's supervision as part of the regular curriculum of this class. The rope used was some 6 feet in length and equipped with a wooden handle at each of its ends. Each pupil engaged in this activity at the time was permitted to continue jumping until either the rope was stepped upon by the jumper or was stopped as the result of striking the jumper's foot. At the time Diane was jumping, one handle of the rope was being held by defendant while the other handle was being held by a classmate of Diane. The accident occurred when Diane's feet came down upon the rope as it was being rotated so that in consequence the wooden handle held by defendant was pulled from her grasp and flew toward Diane, striking one of her upper front teeth and causing the injuries involved herein. When plaintiff rested after submitting the evidence above described, defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the evidence failed to establish any negligence on her part. In opposition to such motion, plaintiff's counsel then stated: In granting defendant's motion, the court stated: In a memorandum accompanying its order denying plaintiff's subsequent motion for a new trial, the court stated: Plaintiff urges that the procedure which permitted a pupil to jump rope until the right to do so was forfeited by stepping on the rope or having it strike the pupil's feet was such that defendant could reasonably have foreseen that an accident of the kind described above might happen; and that in the exercise of reasonable care defendant could have prevented it by furnishing a longer rope; by furnishing a rope without the wooden handles; or by directing that a pupil's right to jump should continue only for a definite time and not until forfeited as above described. 1. An essential element of negligence is knowledge, actual or imputed, by one charged therewith that his acts or omissions claimed to constitute negligence would be dangerous to another. Manteuffel v. Theo. Hamm Brg. Co., 238 Minn. 140, 56 N.W.2d 310. The duty which devolves upon *843 him is dependent upon his reason to apprehend the results which might follow his conduct, and where his conduct is such that ordinarily no injuries would reasonably be anticipated therefrom it is not negligent. Thompson v. Peterson, 235 Minn. 142, 50 N.W.2d 53; Rue v. Wendland, 226 Minn. 449, 33 N.W.2d 593. On this issue it has been held that in considering whether equipment furnished for a specific purpose is safe, the circumstances under which it is to be used are one of the factors determining this question. Manteuffel v. Theo. Hamm Brg. Co., supra. While ordinarily reasonable care may require a higher degree of care toward children than toward adults, where there is no negligence the incapacities of a child who happens to be injured do not of themselves create a liability. Thus, in Pepperling v. Emporium Merc. Co., Inc., 199 Minn. 328, 330, 271 N.W. 584, 585, we stated: 2. Based upon the principles above expressed, we cannot escape the conclusion here that the evidence outlined failed to establish any actionable negligence on the part of defendant. The jumping rope used at the time of Diane's injury was the same as that ordinarily used by children for many years, and we feel as did the trial court that as a matter of law defendant could not have reasonably anticipated that because the rope was no longer than 6 feet, or because it was equipped with wooden handles, or because Diane in the course of jumping over it might step upon it or otherwise stop its progress, there was a danger that the wooden handle would be jerked out of defendant's hand and travel through the air so as to strike and injure Diane. Affirmed. ROGOSHESKE, Justice (dissenting). Although I believe that it is unlikely that a jury would find the teacher negligent under the circumstances, I cannot agree that it would be unreasonable to infer from the undisputed facts that the jumping rope was too short for the purpose and the manner in which it was used. Such an inference could support a finding that the teacher was negligent in failing to anticipate possible injury from the handle being jerked from her grasp and in failing to guard against it by releasing the slack on the rope as soon as the student missed. The particular circumstances, the apparent risk, and the teacher's opportunity to deal with it present a case where it would seem preferable to have a jury rather than the court determine the standard of care required under the circumstances.