Palmer v Cornwall County Council

There is no fixed supervisor-to-pupil ratio applicable in every case. The adequacy of supervision depends on the circumstances and the risks, including the number and age of pupils and the actual allocation of supervisory attention. Younger pupils require closer supervision, but every pupil must remain supervised. Supervision is intended both to deter dangerous activities and to stop them when they occur. A court should not readily assume that the activity would have happened despite proper supervision. Where credible evidence shows that pupils would have been deterred by a nearby supervisor, the failure to provide effective supervision may establish both breach of duty and causation.

The appellant, then aged 14 and a half and attending Newquay Tretherras School, was struck in the eye by a rock thrown at a seagull by another pupil during the lunch break on 12 July 2001. Proceedings against Cornwall County Council were commenced in July 2007. The Recorder dismissed claims under the Occupiers Liability Act and in negligence after a trial on liability. The claim under the Act was not pursued on appeal.

The appeal concerned the number of pupils supervised by one dinner lady, the appropriate level of supervision, whether earlier stone-throwing incidents had occurred, the duration of the activity, and whether proper supervision would have prevented the injury.

1. The appeal was allowed. Lord Justice Waller delivered the judgment, with Lord Justices Longmore and Richards agreeing. The matter was directed to proceed to an assessment of damages if they could not be agreed.
2. No universal supervisor-to-pupil ratio applies. The issue must be determined by the circumstances and an assessment of risk. Younger children require closer supervision than older children, but all pupils require supervision.
3. On the facts, one dinner lady was required to supervise more than 150 younger pupils while giving only occasional attention to years 9 and 10. The older pupils were therefore effectively unsupervised. The conclusion that their supervision was adequate was described as perverse. The Bedfordshire guidance did not establish a mandatory ratio, but supported the distinction between the supervision required for younger and older pupils.
4. Proper supervision has a preventative and deterrent purpose. The court should not readily accept that dangerous conduct would have occurred anyway. The witnesses called for the appellant had been found truthful and gave evidence that they would not have thrown stones if a supervisor had been nearby, because they knew the conduct was prohibited. That evidence established causation. The presence of one supervisor did not answer the point, since she was not in reality supervising the older pupils.
5. Earlier incidents were not necessary to the conclusion. Nevertheless, the Recorder had approached that issue incorrectly: the absence of reports could be explained by inadequate supervision, rather than demonstrating that no stone throwing had occurred.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2009] EWCA Civ 456. Appeal allowed and assessment of damages directed if not agreed.
• Taunton County Court — Recorder Chippindall dismissed the appellant’s claims after a liability trial. Judgment was handed down on 28 October 2008.