Woodbridge School v Chittock

Teachers organising school skiing trips owe the care expected of a reasonably careful parent experienced in skiing and school trips. The standard depends on the pupil’s age, experience, ability, behaviour, the resort and conditions, the school group’s needs, and any parental arrangements. The duty may require supervision or discipline, but it does not guarantee protection against injury from a competent pupil’s own on-piste misjudgement. Where several reasonable responses are available, choosing one within the reasonable range is not negligent. An unauthorised off-piste excursion did not make a severe reprimand negligent or causally connect it to a later on-piste skiing error. The appeal was allowed.

Simon Chittock, aged 17½, was seriously injured while skiing on a school trip in Austria. He had permission to ski unsupervised with two other senior pupils, subject to the school’s overall control and discipline. After the pupils deliberately skied off-piste, the teacher reprimanded them, accepted their assurances, and allowed them to continue skiing unsupervised. The next day Chittock was injured after losing control on a red piste.

Leveson J held the school liable in negligence, subject to 50% contributory negligence, and ordered it to pay two thirds of Chittock’s costs. The school appealed against liability and sought permission to challenge the apportionment. Chittock sought permission to appeal the costs order. The central issues were whether the disciplinary response breached the school’s duty and whether any breach caused the accident.

The appeal was allowed unanimously. Auld LJ gave the leading reasons. Carnwath LJ agreed that the judge had wrongly found a breach of duty and did not consider the remaining issues. Sir Swinton Thomas also agreed.

1. Duty and standard. Teachers on a school skiing trip owed the care expected of a reasonably careful parent with relevant skiing and school-trip experience. The assessment had to reflect the pupil’s age, experience and ability, the resort and its conditions, the teachers’ responsibilities for the school group, the parental understanding permitting unsupervised skiing, and the school’s continuing responsibility for general oversight and discipline. The duty could require positive protective steps, including supervision, but did not require the school to ensure safety against a competent pupil’s own misjudgement or inadvertence while skiing unsupervised on-piste. The principles were consistent with Van Oppen v Bedford Trustees [1990] 1 WLR 235, Hippolyte v London Borough of Bexley [1995] PIQR P309, Gower v London Borough of Bromley [1999] ELR 356, O’Shea v Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames [1995] PIQR P208, and Smolden v Whitworth & Nolan PIQR P133.
2. Breach. The question was whether the reprimand and acceptance of the pupils’ assurances fell outside the reasonable range of responses available to a teacher acting in that capacity. Applying the Bolam approach [1957] 1 WLR 582, and the guidance in X & Ors (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633 and Gower, the Court held that the response was within that range. The pupils had otherwise skied competently and responsibly, and the incident did not show a risk that they would ski irresponsibly on-piste. Expert evidence as to the sanction an expert might impose could not determine this disciplinary judgment. The trial judge’s conclusion exceeded the permissible range of reasonable disagreement, applying G. v G. (Minors: Custody Appeal) [1985] 1 WLR 647.
3. Causation. Even if the disciplinary response had amounted to a breach, the evidence did not establish that it caused the accident on the balance of probabilities. The accident resulted from an on-piste skiing error, not off-piste disobedience. There was no evidential basis for treating it as a continuation of the earlier misconduct, or for assuming that realistic teacher supervision would probably have prevented the error.
4. Other matters. The contributory-negligence and costs issues did not arise after the liability appeal succeeded. Auld LJ nevertheless indicated that he would rarely interfere with the trial judge’s apportionment and would have refused permission to appeal the costs order. The latter view was based on the discretion under CPR Part 44.3 and the principles discussed in A.E.I Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd. [19999] 1 WLR 1507 and In re Elgindata Ltd. (No. 2) [1992] 1 WLR 1204. The order was made in terms agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the school’s appeal against liability. The Court did not need to determine the proposed appeals concerning contributory negligence or costs.
2. Queen’s Bench Division: On 25 July 2001, Leveson J held the school liable in negligence, subject to 50% contributory negligence, and ordered it to pay two thirds of Chittock’s costs.