Joseph Strycharz v. Richard D. Cady — Eveleigh, J., Dissenting

Summary

The dissent agrees that summary judgment was improper on the claim involving the defendants’ ministerial duty to assign supervision and that Joseph Strycharz was within the identifiable class of foreseeable victims. It disagrees that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law on the discretionary-act claims, reasoning that the known traffic danger, the school’s supervision policy, and evidence of absent supervision created a jury question under the clarified imminent-harm standard. The dissent would at least remand for a new summary-judgment hearing because the trial court applied standards later rejected or clarified. As a concurring and dissenting opinion, it does not establish the controlling holding.