Cheryl Daniels, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Anthony Daniels, a minor v. Zachery Fluette
2013 R.I. LEXIS 55
| R.I. | 2013Background
- January 12, 2006 after-school incident at Bishop Hendricken High School involving Anthony Daniels and Zachery Fluette.
- Daniels, a hockey team member, injured when Fluette kicked a bathroom stall, pushing him toward a non-safety glass window.
- Daniels sued Fluette, the school, and agents for negligence; Superior Court granted summary judgment for the school and Brother Leto.
- Plaintiff appealed; Supreme Court granted cause to decide and then affirmed the Superior Court.
- Court reviews summary-judgment de novo focusing on whether a duty and a breach exist; assumes a duty if necessary for analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the school owe a duty to supervise students in this context? | Daniels argues the school had duty to supervise and deter horseplay. | School contends no duty to supervise after school hours and not insurer of safety. | Assumed a duty existed for purposes of review; not dispositive on breach. |
| Did the school breach its duty by inadequate supervision? | No specific act/omission; horseplay foreseen. | Lack of foreseeability and no history of problems; not insurer of safety. | No breach; no material factual dispute on foreseeability or history. |
| Was the failure to install safety glass a breach of duty? | Glass was not safety glass; safety risk should have been anticipated. | Building code compliance and lack of foreseeability negate breach. | No breach; not reasonably foreseeable given evidence and code context. |
| Is reliance on building codes a complete defense to negligence here? | Codes don't absolve duty to protect students. | Code compliance and absence of foreseeability limit liability. | Code compliance plus lack of foreseeability supports summary judgment. |
| What standard governs school liability for third-party acts by students? | Foreseeability test should apply; could have anticipated prank. | Not insurers; only reasonably foreseeable acts trigger duty. | Foreseeability standard applied; no basis found to impose duty breach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Medeiros v. Sitrin, 984 A.2d 620 (R.I. 2009) (duty to supervise; no breach without specific act or omission)
- Armellino v. Thomase, 899 N.Y.S.2d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) (no absolute supervision; foreseeability governs duty)
- Rose v. Onteora Central School District, 861 N.Y.S.2d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) (foreseeability required to find breach in student injuries)
- Johnson v. City of Boston, 490 N.E.2d 1204 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986) (foreseeable hazard; not all cases require safety glass)
- Trimarco v. Klein, 436 N.E.2d 502 (N.Y. 1982) (custom of safety glass in certain contexts; foreseeability inquiry)
- Wheeler v. Jones, 431 P.2d 985 (Utah 1967) (hazard must be foreseeable for liability)