Title: Jerkins v. Anderson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: a-49-06
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: June 14, 2007

In October of 2000, third-grader Joseph Jerkins transferred to the South Main Street elementary school in Pleasantville. The school is in a walking district with no bus service. It also is on a busy street. Joseph usually walked to school and back home with a family member. On June 15, 2001, an early-dismissal day, Joseph s adult brother walked him to school. At about 1:30 that afternoon, students were dismissed. Joseph left school unattended and played with friends. At 3:50 p.m., he was hit by a car several blocks from the school. The accident paralyzed Joseph from the neck down. Meanwhile, Joseph s brother went to the school at 2:50 p.m., the regular pick-up time. He did not see Joseph, and learned from a parent in the lobby that school let out early that day. He searched for Joseph, but later learned about the accident. The school district has a four-page policy that addresses many safety issues, including supervision of students at dismissal. The policy stated that school administrators must cooperate with parents to prevent children from leaving school unsupervised, but it did not explain any procedures for how to accomplish supervision. At Joseph s school, the practice was that all teachers, aides, and security personnel supervised dismissal. The principal personally supervised early-dismissal days to make sure there were no children whose parents did not pick them up. Because the school was in a walking district, students walked home at dismissal unless they were picked up or went to the after-school program. Joseph was not registered in that program, and no guardian had requested that the school release him only if an adult came to pick him up. Joseph s family asserts that they did not know that June 15, 2001 was an early-dismissal day. The school, however, indicated that it notified students and parents more than once about the school calendar, such as in a handbook given out at the start of the school year, a calendar given to parents at back-to-school night, and the June 2001 newsletter. Joseph s family remembered receiving information during the school year, but they argue they were not made aware of the early-dismissal day on June 15. Joseph and his parents filed a complaint claiming that Pleasantville Board of Education and the school principal negligently and recklessly failed to exercise their duty of reasonable supervision of Joseph, leading to the accident that caused his permanent injuries. The trial court granted defendants motion for summary judgment, finding that even if Joseph s injuries were foreseeable, the school was not responsible for preventing harm that occurred hours after dismissal. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that it was foreseeable that a nine-year-old child, who was not met by an adult at dismissal, would remain unsupervised for hours and later be hurt. The panel concluded that there is a duty of care during dismissal, and it remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether defendants were negligent in allowing Joseph to leave school without an adult and, if so, whether their negligence was a proximate cause of Joseph s injuries. The Supreme Court granted defendants petition for certification. 188 N.J. 490 (2006). HELD: Schools have a duty to exercise reasonable care for supervising students safety at dismissal. That duty requires school districts to adopt and comply with a reasonable dismissal supervision policy, provide adequate notice of that policy to parents and guardians, and comply with parents reasonable requests regarding dismissal. 1. Whether a duty of care exists is a question of law to be decided by the court. Factors to consider include whether the potential harm is foreseeable, and whether fairness and policy concerns support imposing a duty. (p. 10) 2. It is foreseeable that a young child, who leaves school without a parent or guardian, may be vulnerable to harm. (p.11) 3. The court conducts a fact-based analysis of four factors to determine whether fairness and policy concerns support the existence of a duty of care at dismissal. First, it flows from the relationship between the school, children and parents that school officials must reasonably supervise children throughout the school day, including through dismissal time. Second, because a young child may not understand the dangers, the risk of harm at dismissal is significant. That risk is reduced by supervision. Third, school officials, who must supervise children during the school day, have the opportunity and ability to supervise the process of dismissal. Fourth, our State has a strong public interest in protecting children. That public interest supports imposing a duty on schools to supervise dismissal. In addition, it is fair to impose a duty because the risk to children is serious, while the additional burden on the school to supervise dismissal is minimal. (pp. 11-16) 4. Other New Jersey cases support the existence of a duty to supervise students during dismissal. For example, schools must exercise reasonable care outside of the classroom and beyond regular school hours, such as when students first arrive in the morning before school doors open, or while students are dismissed to go home for lunch. Cases from other states also have held that schools have a duty to reasonably supervise children at dismissal. (pp. 16-19) 5. The standard of care at dismissal is one of reasonableness. That is a flexible standard that addresses whether, under all the circumstances, the school acted as a reasonable educator would act in similar circumstances. (pp. 19-20) 6. There are three elements to the school s duty of care at dismissal: (1) the school must adopt a reasonable policy concerning dismissal and the manner in which students of different ages will be dismissed; (2) the school must provide adequate notice of that policy to all parents and guardians; and (3) the school must effectively implement that policy and adhere to parents reasonable requests regarding dismissal. (pp. 20-25) 7. Because the matter is before the Court after defendants successful motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. When viewed in that light, the sparse record developed to date as to the reasonableness of the school district s efforts does not foreclose defendants liability. This matter presents unresolved factual questions: whether defendants breached their duty of reasonable supervision at dismissal and whether such a breach proximately caused Joseph s injuries. Thus, the matter is remanded for the trier of fact to consider the issues. (pp. 25-29) The judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED as MODIFIED, and the matter is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Court s opinion. JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA , ALBIN, WALLACE , RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS join in CHIEF JUSTICE ZAZZALI s opinion. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 49 September Term 2006 Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. SOWETO ANDERSON; KEMBA N. ANDERSON; JOHN DOES 1-10 (fictitious individuals) and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10 (fictitious entities), Defendants, and BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PLEASANTVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS and ROSEMAY CLARKE, Defendants-Appellants. Argued February 20, 2007 Decided June 14, 2007 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Gregory J. Giordano argued the cause for appellants (Lenox, Socey, Wilgus, Formidoni, Brown, Giordano &amp; Casey, attorneys; Mr. Giordano and Margaret A. Chipowsky, on the briefs). Scott K. McClain argued the cause for respondents (Winne, Banta, Hetherington, Basralian &amp; Kahn, attorneys). John J. Burns argued the cause for amicus curiae, New Jersey School Boards Association (Cynthia J. Jahn, General Counsel, attorney; Donna M. Kaye, Senior Counsel, on the letter brief). CHIEF JUSTICE ZAZZALI delivered the opinion of the Court. Nine-year-old Joseph Jerkins was dismissed from school on an early-dismissal day, walked off school grounds without an adult, and was struck by a car a few blocks from school later that afternoon. The accident paralyzed Joseph from the neck down. He and his family filed a complaint alleging that the school district and principal breached their duty of reasonable supervision with respect to Joseph s dismissal from school. The Law Division granted defendants motion for summary judgment, finding that their duty of care did not apply to an accident that occurred hours after Joseph s dismissal and blocks from his school. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that schools have a duty of reasonable care to supervise children at dismissal, and remanded the matter for a trial to determine whether that duty was breached here. In this appeal, we must determine whether schools have a duty of reasonable supervision during dismissal and, if so, we must define the scope of that duty. We find that because a school s duty to exercise reasonable care for the children in its custody is integral to our public education system, the duty does not summarily disappear when the school bell rings. Accordingly, we hold that schools in New Jersey must exercise a duty of reasonable care for supervising students safety at dismissal. The duty requires school districts to create a reasonable dismissal supervision policy, provide suitable notice to parents of that policy, and effectively comply with the policy and subsequent and appropriate parental requests concerning dismissal. We therefore substantially affirm the decision of the Appellate Division and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. A. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-49 SEPTEMBER TERM 2006 ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court JOSEPH JERKINS, an infant by his Guardian Ad Litem, CHARLES JERKINS; CHARLES JERKINS and TONI JERKINS, individually, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. SOWETO ANDERSON; KEMBA N. ANDERSON; JOHN DOES 1-10 (fictitious individuals) and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10 (fictitious entities), Defendants, and BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PLEASANTVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS And ROSEMAY CLARKE, Defendants-Appellants. DECIDED June 14, 2007 Chief Justice Zazzali PRESIDING OPINION BY Chief Justice Zazzali CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY DISSENTING OPINION BY