## Facts

- On April 8, 1969, during a regular after-school bus trip taking students home from Glenville School, Douglas Hillman (a minor) was seated toward the front of the bus.
- LaDon Ellingson, an 18-year-old high school student, brought a 1/4-inch plastic hose (about 3 feet long) onto the bus, concealed in his pocket.
- Ellingson and Ronald Kleven were seated near the rear of the bus.
- After the bus left the school, students began playing with the hose; Kleven walked up the aisle toward the driver while stretching the hose, with Ellingson holding the other end.
- When Kleven was about 3 to 4 feet from the driver, the hose broke and struck Douglas Hillman in the eye, causing injury.
- The bus had a large interior mirror that allowed the driver, Lyle Wallin, to see most students on the bus.
- Wallin became aware of the hose after the trip began and observed Kleven stretching it down the aisle, but did not stop the conduct at that time, testifying he was focused on traffic and did not act until reaching a later stopping point.
- Douglas Hillman (through his father and natural guardian) sued Wallin, Ellingson, and Kleven for personal injuries; Harris Hillman also sought consequential damages individually.
- Wallin asserted cross-claims against Ellingson and Kleven seeking indemnity (and related relief), but the trial court made no ruling on the cross-claims.
- The jury apportioned negligence as follows: Wallin 76%, Ellingson 12%, and Kleven 12%.
- Wallin moved for a new trial; the trial court denied the motion, and Wallin appealed. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether the case was tried under correct legal standards for assessing a school bus driver’s negligence in failing to respond to observed student horseplay that posed a risk of harm.
2. Whether, given the jury’s findings and the parties’ conduct, Wallin was entitled to have his cross-claims for indemnity (and related allocation between tortfeasors) addressed and properly submitted/ruled upon.
3. Whether trial errors affecting the negligence and allocation questions required a new trial.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the order denying Wallin’s motion for a new trial.
- The court remanded for a new trial so the negligence and allocation questions could be determined under proper legal guidance, including appropriate treatment of Wallin’s claims over against the student defendants.
- The court indicated that any right to indemnity or contribution turns on the nature of each wrongdoer’s conduct and their comparative blame, not merely the numerical percentages found in the first trial.

## Legal Principles

- A school bus driver owes student passengers a duty of reasonable care for their safety, which may include taking reasonable steps to address dangerous conduct by students when the driver is aware of it and has an opportunity to respond.
- When multiple parties contribute to an injury, fault allocation and any shifting of loss between tortfeasors must be evaluated by examining the character of each party’s misconduct and their comparative blame.
- Indemnity is not automatic between negligent actors; it depends on whether one party’s fault is secondary in relation to another’s more direct wrongdoing, under Minnesota indemnity doctrines.
- A trial court must properly handle claims between defendants (such as cross-claims for indemnity or contribution) when those claims are part of the case and are affected by the fact-finder’s fault determinations.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court ordered a new trial arising from a student’s eye injury caused by hose horseplay on a school bus, holding that the negligence and allocation issues—including Wallin’s cross-claims against the students—required retrial under correct legal standards governing the driver’s duty and the proper analysis of indemnity/contribution between responsible parties.


Hillman v. Wallin, 215 N.W.2d 810 (1974)