Court Opinion

ID: 9885693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 13:10:51.147911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:55.821761
License: Public Domain

Beldock, J. (dissenting).
Respondent was required to provide only general, and not immediate, supervision over the swing area. It furnished such general supervision. The supervisor could not be in all parts of the playground at once. The temporary absence of the supervisor from the swing area is not proof that respondent failed in its duty of general supervision any more than if she had been in another part of the playground at the time. The temporary absence of respondent’s supervisor was not the proximate producing cause of the accident. The accident happened immediately after the little girl started swinging—on the second upward swing. Under these circumstances, no inference can be drawn that any more immediate supervision would have prevented the accident, or that by any act or omission of respondent, the infant appellant was placed in a position of danger which caused his injuries, or that any greater care by respondent would have averted the accident.
*53Nolan, P. J., and Kleinfeld, J., concur with Hallinan, J.; Beldock, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with memorandum, in which Wenzel, J., concurs.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and the verdict of the jury-in favor of appellants reinstated as rendered so that the appellants may enter the appropriate judgment thereon.
Appeal from order dismissed, without costs. No such order is printed in the record.