Rigby v Wandsworth Borough Council

An employer’s duty to provide a safe system of work must be assessed in the context of the workplace and the risks inherent in it. In a specialist school for pupils with severe learning difficulties, the existence of unavoidable risks of injury did not remove the duty to take reasonable precautions, but alleged procedural shortcomings were actionable only if they amounted to a breach and caused the injury.

Regular supervision, behaviour plans, risk assessments, staff discussions and responsive measures may together constitute an adequate safety system, even without one comprehensive document. Additional funding for one-to-one support does not necessarily require a dedicated carer. A senior employee who understands the risks and chooses to undertake an activity remains responsible for assessing its safety.

The claimant, an assistant head teacher at a special residential school maintained by the defendant, claimed damages for shoulder injuries sustained while intervening in two incidents involving a pupil with severe learning difficulties and challenging behaviour.

She alleged negligence and breach of contract arising from inadequate induction, training, risk assessments, behaviour-management procedures, staffing and one-to-one supervision. The defendant accepted a duty of care but denied breach and causation, relying on the measures in place and the claimant’s own knowledge and decisions. The central issues were whether the defendant had operated a reasonably safe system of work and whether any alleged deficiencies caused the injuries.

1. Claim dismissed. Judgment was entered for the defendant. The question of costs remained to be determined.
2. The court accepted that the school owed the claimant a duty to take reasonable care for her health and safety and to operate a safe system of work. The assessment had to reflect the nature of the school, where some risk of injury from pupils with severe and challenging behaviour could not be eliminated.
3. The absence of a single comprehensive health and safety or violence-at-work document did not establish breach. The court found an integrated system comprising regular meetings, incident and accident records, behaviour plans, risk assessments, internal reviews, staff training and supervision. Any shortcomings did not materially affect the claimant’s safety on the facts found.
4. The court rejected the contention that one-to-one funding necessarily meant a permanently dedicated carer. The evidence supported the practical interpretation that funding supplied additional staffing within the class. The claimant was in fact working with the pupil on a one-to-one basis during the first incident, and no warning signs had been shown which would have enabled the incident to be prevented. The defendant had also acted appropriately in seeking additional funding after a later assault which marked a materially different and more concerning event.
5. In relation to the second incident, the claimant knew that the pupil required one-to-one supervision, knew that funding had been sought, understood his propensities and had responsibility as a senior manager, head of department and class teacher for assessing the risk. She chose to take him out and then pulled his arm, contrary to the school’s SCIP procedures and advice previously given to her. The court held that the defendant’s alleged failings were neither a breach of duty nor the cause of the injury.

Not stated in the judgment.