Clark v. Board of Education
Kenneth Clark, an Infant, by Albert Clark, His Guardian ad Litem v. Board of Education of the City of New York
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The trial court submitted this case to the jury on two theories of negligence: (1) lack of supervision, and (2) lack of adequate instruction. Although the court was correct in its final conclusion that the case should not have been submitted to the jury on the first ground, it erred in dismissing the complaint, since there was evidence to support the verdict *490 on the second ground (see Gardner v. State of New York, 281 N. Y. 212 ). Accordingly, the judgment may not stand. Inasmuch as we cannot know on which ground the jury arrived at its verdict, there must be a new trial (Phillipson v. Ninno, 233 N. Y. 223, 225-226 ; Elenkrieg v. Siebrecht, 238 N. Y. 254, 263 ).
The judgments should therefore be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.
Judgments reversed, etc.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 16 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.