HILLMAN
v.
GREATER MIAMI HEBREW ACADEMY (TWO CASES)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of negligence suits brought by parents of a child injured falling from a monkey bar on a school playground, holding that a school's duty is to provide reasonably safe equipment appropriate to children's age and understanding, not to insure absolute safety. The court rejected the argument that negligent maintenance or insufficient supervision of standard playground equipment constituted actionable negligence.
The complaints do not state a cause of action for negligence. A school's duty is to furnish a reasonably safe place to play commensurate with children's knowledge and impulses, not to insure their absolute safety. Without allegations of latent defects, negligent construction or operation, or danger that children would not readily comprehend, no actionable negligence exists regarding standard playground equipment.
“the law contemplates that it furnish them a reasonably safe place to play commensurate with their knowledge and impulses”
Establishes the standard of care owed by schools—not absolute safety but reasonably safe conditions appropriate to children's age and understanding
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFreddie Hillman fell from a monkey bar constructed on the playground of the Greater Miami Hebrew Academy. The monkey bar was an approved, standard ite…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insurer Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
These suits were brought by appellants against appellee to recover damages for personal injuries to Freddie Hillman incident to falling from a monkey bar constructed on the playground of appellee. The amended complaints were dismissed, rehearing was denied and final judgment was entered for appellee. The plaintiffs have appealed.
The only question presented is whether or not the amended complaints state a cause of action based on negligence.
It is admitted that the monkey bar is an approved item of school or playground equipment often used for recreational purposes. It is contended by appellant that the monkey bar in question was negligently maintained in that it was constructed in a way that it extended over the trunk of a coconut palm tree and that appellee failed to keep it supervised by one competent to look after children of tender age playing near and prevent them falling from it. It is not alleged that it was defectively constructed or that it was an improper and dangerous piece of playground equipment. Marques v. Riverside Military Academy, 87 Ga. App. 370, 73 S.E. 2d 574; Bagdad Land & Lumber Co. v. Boyette, 104 Fla. 699, 140 So. 798; Burdine’s, Inc., v. McConnell, 146 Fla. 512, 1 So. 2d 462 and other cases are relied on to support this contention.
These cases are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. ' In the main, the court’s reasoning in adjudicating them was bottomed on the premise that the equipment was infected with some latent defect, that it was inherently dangerous or not such as minors would appreciate the danger involved in its use, or that those in whom supervision was imposed failed to warn the minor. The vice of the complaint in question consisted in the fact that it sought to make appellee an insurer of the safety of minor children who used its playground equipment while the law contemplates that it furnish them a reasonably safe place to play commensurate with their knowledge and impulses. There is no allegation in the amended complaint that the monkey bar contained latent defects, that it was negligently constructed or operated or that there was any present danger that one of tender years would not readily comprehend. It was approved standard playground equipment and no amount of superintendence would have prevented the accident. Miller v. Board of Education Union Free School District No. 1, Town of Oyster Bay, 1936, 249 App.Div. 738, 291 N.Y.S. 633 disposes of the question.
The judgment appealed from is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Honesto Alegre v. Shurkey, 396 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…black top” surface. However, we consider that the facts in this case are distinguishable from those in Hunt, and moreover, we further conclude that a determination of this question in Florida is controlled by Hillman v. Greater Miami Hebrew Academy, 72 So. 2d 668 (Fla.1954). In Hillman, the injured child was playing on monkey bars constructed on the playground of a private school. The plaintiffs contended that the monkey bar equipment in question was negligently maintained, in that it was constructed so tha…1 / 2
-
Panoz v. Gulf & Bay Corp. of Sarasota, 208 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…. Negligence § 63(121), p. 888, § 63(17), p. 880. As this 2nd District Court and also the 3rd District Court said in the two “monkey bar” cases, Elmore v. Sones, Fla.App., 1962, 140 So. 2d 59, and Hillman v. Greater Miami Hebrew Academy, Fla., 1954 72 So. 2d 668, respectively, “no amount of superintendence would have prevented the accident”. Singularly enough, we have found only two reported cases involving alleged negli [*302] gence in the operation of a golf course, Gillespie v. Chevy Chase Golf Club, 19…
-
City OF Miami v. Mauricio Ameller, 472 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1985)…onkey bar contained latent defects, that it was negligently constructed or operated or that there was any present danger that one of tender years could not readily comprehend.” 396 So. 2d at 248, quoting from Hillman v. Greater Miami Hebrew Academy, 72 So. 2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1954). Judge Ervin dissented from the portion of Alegre applying this “no-duty doctrine” to deprive injured invitees of a jury trial where the risk of injury was patent. 396 So. 2d at 251-52. We agree with the Alegre majority that Hillma…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burdine's, Inc. v. Enoch Mood McConnell, Jr., 146 Fla. 512 (Fla. 1941)
- Bagdad Land & Lumber Co. v. Boyette, 104 Fla. 699 (Fla. 1932)