NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 0271

- 17T1
C .H. , an infant by her G uardian ad L item, Brenda Cummings, and BRENDA CUMMINGS, i ndividually, Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v. RAHWAY BOARD OF EDUCATION, RAHWAY MIDDLE SCHOOL, RAHWAY 7TH AND 8TH GRADE ACADEMY, and GARRY MARTIN Defendants

- Respondents.

________________________________

Argued October 10, 2018

– Decided Before Judges Yannotti, Gilson, and Natali. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No. L

- 3701

- 15. Juan C. Cervantes argued the cause for appellants ( Forman & Cardonsky , attorneys; Juan C. Cervantes, on the briefs). Howard M. Nirenberg argued the cause for respondents ( Nir enberg & Varano, LLP, attorneys; Howard M

. Nirenberg, of counsel; Sandra N. Varano , on the brief). November 16 , 2018 APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

June 19, 2 019 APPELLATE DIVISION2 A

- 0271

- 17T1

The opinion of the court was delivered by GILSON, J.A.D. Plaintiff C.H. was injured while playing in a student

- teacher fundraising basketball game. She appeals from an August 23, 2017 order granting summar y judgment and dismissing her claims against defendants, who were her school,
the school board , and a teacher . We affirm because the undisputed facts establish that defendants did not breach a duty of care to plaintiff.
I We take the facts from the summary judgment record and view them in the light most favorable to plaintiff. In June 2013, plaintiff was fourteen years old, in eighth grade, and a member of her school basketball team. On June 11, 2013, plaintiff participated in a basketball game in which a team of teachers played against a team of students. The game was an annual fundraising event, and student participation was voluntary. Approximately fifteen teachers and school safety officials and seventeen students participated in the game. Th e game was officiated by at least one referee. There were also five other teachers who did not play in the game, but attended to provi de supervision.3 A

- 0271

- 17T1

During the game, plaintiff went up for a rebound, and made contact with defendant Gar r y Martin, who was a teacher . Plaintiff landed awkwardly, fell, and injured her knee. At her deposition, plaintiff described how her injury occurred: Everyone swarm[ed] in, but the teacher [came] running

down, like, I guess, because he wanted to get the ball, and it was off ensive rebound I was going for. And he went up, I went up. But he shoved me, like, to get me out of the way so that he could get the rebound. And when I came down I had to stop myself from falling. And I couldn't plant right.
D efense counsel questione d plaintiff further as to the details of the events that preceded her injury. Specifically, counsel asked and plaintiff answered :

[Counsel] [I]f I understood your testimony, when you

went up, everybody close to the basket went up also? [Plaintiff] Yes.

. . . . [Counsel] So you are going up for the rebound , and

contact is made? [Plaintiff] Yes. [Counsel] And do you know who made contact with

you? [Plaintiff] Mr. Martin.4 A

- 0271

- 17T1 [Counsel] And where was Mr. Martin when he made

contact with you? [Plaintiff] On my left side.

. . . . [Counsel] Mr. Martin is to your left. Is he even with

you? [Plaintiff] No. He's on an angle. [Counsel] Is he on an angle in front of you or behind

you? [Plaintiff] Yes, in front of me. [Counsel] So he's closer to the bas ket ? [Plaintiff] Yes.

. . . . [Counsel] So as he’s in front of you to the left and he's

going up for the rebound and you're going up for the rebound, what happens? [Plaintiff] He shoves back to try to rip through. [Counsel] When you say "he shoves back," does he

push his body backwards to create more space between him and the rim? [Plaintiff] Yes. [Counsel] And he does that in order to be able to get

a better angle

- -5 A

- 0271

- 17T1 [Plaintiff] Yes. [Counsel]

- - to get the ball? [Plaintiff] Yes

. [Counsel] And as he did that, you are, I assume, going

for the ball so you are leaning forward? [Plaintiff] Yes. [Counsel] And jumping forward? [Plaintiff] Yes. [Counsel] And as you're leaning and jumping forward

and he's pushing back to create some space, contact is made? [Plaintiff] Yes.

. . . . [Counsel] And what part of his body makes contact

with what part of your body? [Plaintiff] His upper body hits my upper body

. Plaintiff then testified that after her upper body and Martin's upper body
collided , she could not sto p herself from falling. In Octobe r 2015, plaintiff, through her g uardian ad litem, filed a complaint against Martin, her school, and the school board. Thereafter , she amended her complaint. In her amended complaint, plaintiff asserted claims for negligence6 A

- 0271

- 17T1

and intentional conduct and she and her g uardian ad litem sought damages related to plaintiff's knee injury . The parties engaged in and completed discovery. Thereafter, defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court heard oral arguments and , o n August 23, 2017, the court issued a written opinion and entered an order granting summary jud g ment to defendants. The court first determined that plaintiff had failed to present evidence that defendants had engaged in negligent supervision. In that regard, the court found that the game was officiated by a referee and there were approximately five teachers, who did not participate in the game, but who attended to provide supervision. The court went on to reason that there was no showing that plaintiff's injury, which occurred when the players jumped for a rebound, could have been pr evented by further supervision.
The court next held that a participant in recreational sport activity cannot assert a claim of negligence against a co

- participant who causes her injury. Instead, such a plaintiff must show that the co

- participant engaged in reckless or intentional conduct that caused the injury. See Crawn v. Campo , 136 N.J. 494, 497 (1994). Accepting plaintiff's description of the incident, the court found that there were no facts showing that Martin had acted recklessly or intentionally. Plaintiff now appeals.7 A

- 0271

- 17T1 II On appeal, plaintiff makes tw o arguments. First, she contends that Martin, as a teacher, and her school and the school board, as Martin's employers, owed her a duty of supervisory care , which they breached. Second, she argues that there was a material fact issue concerning whether M artin acted recklessly during the basketball game. We disagree. There are no facts showing defendant s breached their duty to provide supervision to plaintiff as a student participating in a basketball game. Moreover, acc epting plaintiff's description of the incident, the material undisputed facts do not show that Martin acted recklessly or intentionally.
We conduct a de novo review of an order granting summary judgment, and apply the same standard employed by the trial court. Davis v. Brickman Landscap ing, Ltd. , 219 N.J. 395, 405 (20 14) (first citing Manahawkin Convalescent v. O'Neill , 217 N.J. 99, 115 (2014); then quoting Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad , 210 N.J. 581, 584 (2012)) . Accordingly, we determine whether the moving party has demonstrated t hat there are no genuine disputes as to material facts and, if so , whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the non

- moving party, entitle the moving party to a judgment as a matter of law. I d. at 405

- 06 (first quoting R. 4:46

- 2(c); then quoting Brill v.8 A

- 0271

- 17T1

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995) )

. When no issues of material fact exist, but a question of law remains, our review of that legal issue is plenary. Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire I ns. Co. of Pittsburgh , 224 N.J. 189, 199 (2016) (citing Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp.
Comm. of Manalapan , 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).
A. The School's Duty to Supervise School officials have a duty to supervise the children in their care. See
e.g. , Jerki ns v. Anderson , 191 N.J. 2 85, 296 (2007) (stating that "[ s ]chool officials have a general duty 'to exercise reasonabl e supervis ory care for the safety of students entrusted to them, and [are accountable] for injuries resulting from failure to discharge that duty '" ( second alteration in original) ( q uoting Caltavuturo v. City of Passaic , 124 N.J. Super. 361, 366 (App. Div. 1973) ) )

. Accordingly, "[t]eachers must at times be present to oversee students on school playgrounds and in hallways, cl assrooms, lunchrooms and auditoriums." Kibler v. Roxbury Bd. of Ed uc . , 392 N.J. Super. 45, 55 (App. Div. 2007). That duty may be violated by inactions, as well as actions. Titus v. Lin d berg , 49 N.J. 66, 74 (1967)

. The supervisory duty extends to "foreseeable dangers .

. . [that] arise from
the careless acts or intentional transgressions of others." Frugis v. Bra cigliano ,9 A

- 0271

- 17T1

177 N.J. 250, 268 (2003). School officials must exercise "that degree of care which a person of ordinary prudence, charged with comparable duties, would
exercise under the same circumstances." Caltavuturo , 124 N.J. Super. at 366 ( citing Dailey v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. , 470 P.2d 360, 363

- 64 (Cal. 1970) )

. Here, there was no showing of a breach of the duty to supervise plaint iff. The basketball game was officiated by a referee. Moreover, additional supervision was provided by approximately five teachers who did not participate in the game. There were no facts showing that the game was being conducted in a reckless or out

- of

- control manner before plaintiff was injured. In that regard, plaintiff testified that she had only played for a few minutes in the first half of the game , and her injury occurred within five minutes of the start of the second half of the game. While pla intiff testified that the teachers were beginning to play "aggressively , " she also acknowledged that the game was a typical basketball game and the referee w as not calling many fouls

. Plaintiff was injured when she jumped for a rebound and came into conta ct with another player who happened to be a teacher. Th ose undisputed facts establish that plaintiff's injury did not result from a lack of supervision. Instead, the undisputed facts establish that plaintiff was injured while participating in a recreational sport activity.10 A

- 0271

- 17T1

B. Injuries in Recreational Sports

" [T]he duty of care applicable to participants in informal recreational sports is to avoid the infliction of injury caused by reckless or intentional conduct." Sch ick v. Ferolito , 167 N.J. 7, 12 (2001) (alteration in original) (quoting Crawn , 136 N.J. at 497). Accordingly, a participant who causes injury to another participant in a recreational sporting activity cannot be found liable for simple negligence. Our Su preme Court has explained t hat two considerations support this heightened standard: " t he promotion of vigorous participation in athletic activities, and the avoidance of a flood of litigatio n generated by participation in recreational games and sports." Id. at 12

- 13 (citing
Crawn , 136 N.J. at 501). The Supreme Court has reasoned that a recklessness standard is more appropriate because a certain level of risk of harm is a normal part of a recreational game. Id. at 13 (citing Crawn , 136 N.J. at 506

- 08). In that regard, the C ourt has explained:

Our conclusion that a recklessness standard is the appropriate one to apply in the sports context is found ed on more than a concern for a court's ability to discern adequately what constitutes reasonable conduct und er the highly varied circumstances of informal sports activity. The heightened standard will more likely result in affixing liability for conduct that is clearly unreasonable and u nacceptable from the perspective of those engaged in the sport yet leaving free from the sup ervision of the law the risk

- la den conduct that is11 A

- 0271

- 17T1 inherent in sports and more often than not a ssumed to be "part of the game." [ Crawn , 136 N.J. at 508.] Here, plaintiff has conceded that Martin "was not intentionally trying to injure [ her]." Indeed, the record contains no facts that would support a finding that Martin acted intentionally to injure plaintiff. Consequently, the question here is whether plaintiff has presented facts showing that Martin acted recklessly when he jumped for a rebound. According to plaintiff's own testimony, Martin was on an angle in front of her . Martin then
pus hed his body backward to create more space between himself and the basketball rim while jumping for the ball. The contact occurred when plaintiff leaned and jumped forward to try to get the ball and her upper body came into contact with Martin's upper body. Such facts, even when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, do not establish reckless conduct in a basketball
game . I nstead, those facts describe normal activity that occurs when players attempt to make rebo unds during a basketball game. Plaintiff did not describe any conduct by Martin that could be found to be excessively harmful conduct. Ibid. ("The heightened reckless ness standard recognizes a common sense distinction between excessively harmful conduct and the more routine rough

- and

- tumble of sports that should occur freely on the12 A

- 0271

- 17T1

playing fields and should not be second

- guessed in courtrooms."). Moreover, plai ntiff's testimony provides no evidence that Martin disregarded a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow. Indeed, there was no evidence that Martin was aware that plaintiff was angled behind him and was jumping forward as he was push ing backwards and jumping for the rebound. To the extent that plaintiff argues that a negligence standard should apply because Martin was a teacher, we find no support for such a change in the law. Martin and plaintiff part icipated in the game as players. As already pointed out, the school provided appropriate supervision by a referee and other teachers. In her candid testimony, plaintiff described Martin's actions as the actions typical of any basketball player. T here ar e no facts in the record to demonstrate that Martin used his position as a teacher to conduct himself differently than a normal player. Accordingly , there is no basis to impose a greater duty on Martin than any other participant in a recreational sporting activity.
Affirmed.