Court Opinion

ID: 9737363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:23:06.312739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:58.399713
License: Public Domain

SHOEMAKER, J.
I concur in the judgment.
It is true, as the dissent recites, that the teacher testified that the children had been instructed during this period not to run when they reached the black-top area. However, in my opinion the running is of no moment for it was not the proximate cause of the youngster’s injury, rather, it was the shove he received when he had reached the area where a line had begun to form and in which he was to take his place. Under the circumstances developed by the evidence in this case, the law does not require supervision constant to every phase of the class activity. This accident took place just prior to the commencement of a class period, which as to older children would be classified as a gym period, and appears to me to be governed by the authority of Reithardt v. Board of Education, 43 Cal.App.2d 629 [111 P.2d 440] (discussion at pages 632, 633 being particularly appropriate to the present situation).
Since there is no contention that the play area was defective in any manner, an affirmance of the judgment must be based upon the failure to supervise as the cause of plaintiff’s injury. In view of the authorities cited in the majority opinion, this cannot be done.