Afterschool Care

[Windd]

Child in after-school program at local "Y" on CP's court ordered days and signed in under supervision of staff.  Program open to parents visiting with open observation. NCP usurps authority of staff and child is now under ncp's control while still signed in and supposed to be under staff's control. Child get's injured, staff cannot complete incident report other than saying injury happened while under the supervision of parent instead of staff.
   Whose liability is this?

[socrateaser]

>Child in after-school program at local "Y" on CP's court
>ordered days and signed in under supervision of staff.
>Program open to parents visiting with open observation. NCP
>usurps authority of staff and child is now under ncp's control
>while still signed in and supposed to be under staff's
>control. Child get's injured, staff cannot complete incident
>report other than saying injury happened while under the
>supervision of parent instead of staff.
>Whose liability is this?

Not enough facts. First, need to know what sort of release is in the contract that you signed before the child was admitted to the program.

Assuming no contract release exists, then, if child was injured using equipment or engaged in play, that required supervision by Y personnel, and they didn't provide because the parent was present, Y is still liable, because it breached its duty of due care when it permitted the child to remain on the premises and use the equipment supervised by someone who is not authorized to supervise.

If "but for" the failure to supervise, the child would not have been injured, or if the failure to supervise is a substantial factor in causing the child's injury, then Y is liable.

However, if "but for" parent's acts or omissions, child would not have been injured, then parent is an independent supervening cause, and may have broken the causal chain between the Y's failure to supervise and the child's injury. If so, then parent is liable and Y is not.

Father could also be a dependent supervening act, if the injury would not have occured without both the father and the Y's involvement.

Or, it could be that the whole thing was an accident that could not have been avoided even were due care observed by both father and Y. In which case, no one is liable.

Finally, the extent of the injury is ultimately determinative of liability. No damages -- no negligence.

So, it depends largely on the exact facts and circumstances, which I don't know sufficiently to be able to comment.