Court Opinion

ID: 9791649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:15:15.619513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:37.617593
License: Public Domain

Springer, J.,
with whom Steffen, J., agrees,
dissenting:
The trial court was correct in ruling that there is no evidence that the school district had “actual knowledge” of a hazardous condition. Any knowledge on the part of the school district must be based on the principal’s knowledge, and there is no evidence that the principal knew of any danger.
Chastain relies on her affidavit, which tells us only that “Mrs. Wisdom told me that she had ordered sand for the sandbox at least five times.” That a principal should order sand more than once tells us very little about what she “actually” knew about the condition of the sandbox. The principal’s ordering of sand in this case could tell us that she anticipated a shortage or that a shortage already existed. Even if she had known that a shortage existed, this by no means suffices as proof that she had “actual knowledge of [a] hazard.” See Nardozzi v. Clark Co. School Dist., 108 Nev. 7, 823 P.2d 285 (1992).
The mere fact that the principal ordered sand several times does not constitute a prima facie case that the school district, through its principal, had actual knowledge of some hazard in the school environs and that the district failed to heed a known danger. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.