Kush v. City of Buffalo

New York Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsNegligencePremises LiabilityProximate CauseForeseeabilityschool premisesdangerous chemicalsreasonable care

Facts

During a summer youth program at Kensington High School, two 15-year-old student employees were left unsupervised while adult custodial staff took a coffee break. The laboratory and adjacent storeroom were not properly locked, and the school did not store combustible chemicals in a locked, fireproof cabinet despite its own safety regulations. The students took magnesium powder and potassium nitrate, dropped them in bushes outside a fourth-story window, and planned to retrieve them later. The eight-year-old plaintiff, who regularly played on the school grounds and whose presence there during summer was known to school authorities, found the chemicals, played with them and matches, and was burned when they exploded.

Issue

Whether the school owed and breached a duty to secure dangerous chemicals from children's unsupervised access, and whether the student employees' intentional theft of the chemicals was a superseding cause that relieved the school of liability. Also at issue was whether the infant plaintiff's presence on the school grounds was sufficiently foreseeable to bring him within the scope of the school's duty.

Rule

A landowner must exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to maintain property in a safe condition, with the duty's scope determined by the likelihood of injury, severity of potential harm, burden of avoiding the risk, and foreseeability of the plaintiff's presence. Where a school maintains dangerous chemicals and recognizes the grave risk of children's unsupervised access, reasonable care requires securing those chemicals so that children cannot readily obtain them. An intervening intentional act does not supersede liability when that act is itself a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the risk that defines the defendant's duty.

🔒

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.

Lakeside Middle School in Rochester stores corrosive and flammable lab chemicals in a prep room. In July, the school is closed for classes, but staff have repeatedly seen neighborhood children cutting across the campus to reach a nearby park; one child enters through an unlocked side door, finds chemicals left accessible, and is burned when they ignite.

Is the school most likely to owe the child a duty of reasonable care with respect to securing the chemicals?

Explanation. A landowner must use reasonable care under the circumstances, and the scope of duty depends in part on the foreseeability of the plaintiff's presence. Where children are known to come onto school grounds during summer and dangerous chemicals are maintained there, a jury could find the child's presence foreseeable even though school is out of session. The duty is not limited to enrolled students or invited entrants. (Derived from Kush v. City of Buffalo (n.d.).)