Chainani v. Board of Education

New York Court of Appeals · Torts

Tortsschool transportationindependent contractor liabilitynondelegable dutystatutory dutydirect liabilityvicarious liabilityindependent contractor

Facts

In Chainani, an eight-year-old student exited a school bus at her designated stop and had to cross the street to reach her home. A substitute driver employed by an independent bus company, unaware that she needed to cross, pulled away after she stepped in front of the bus and ran over her. In Bruce, a nine-year-old student missed her safe designated stop on her side of a highway, crossed to an undesignated stop on the opposite side to catch the bus, and was struck by a car before boarding. In both cases, the schools had contracted transportation services to independent bus companies.

Issue

Whether public schools that contract with independent bus companies may be held directly or vicariously liable for injuries to students occurring between the child's home and the bus stop. Also, in Chainani, whether the bus driver and bus company were liable under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1174(b) when the driver claimed he did not know the child had to cross the street.

Rule

A school has a duty of care while children are in its physical custody or orbit of authority, or when a specific statutory duty is imposed, but when transportation is contracted out the school is not liable on a custody theory for injuries occurring between home and bus stop. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1174(b) places its affirmative duties on bus drivers, not schools. A principal generally is not liable for an independent contractor's acts unless a statute or regulation imposes a nondelegable duty on the principal or the delegated work is inherently dangerous; transporting children by school bus is not inherently dangerous within that exception. Under § 1174(b), a driver who receives or discharges children who must cross the road is absolutely liable when violation of the statutory duty proximately causes injury, and the driver cannot avoid liability by failing to learn whether a child must cross.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A public school district in Buffalo contracts all student transportation to Lakeview Student Transit, a private company. Before the morning bus arrives, ten-year-old Nora Kim slips on ice while walking from her house to her assigned corner stop and is injured.

Is the school district most likely directly liable in tort for Nora’s injury on these facts?

Explanation. The majority held that a school owes a duty while children are in its physical custody or orbit of authority, or where a specific statutory duty exists. But when the school has contracted out transportation, it cannot be held liable on a theory that the child was in its physical custody during travel between home and the bus stop. Nothing in these facts supplies custody or another duty basis. (Derived from Chainani v. Board of Education (n.d.).)