Alexis v London Borough of Newham

Foreseeability of injury caused by pupils’ misconduct does not, by itself, establish a duty of care. An education authority owes teachers the duty of a reasonable employer and must take precautions that are reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent or minimise injury from pupils’ mischievous or malicious behaviour. Where independent human conduct is involved, the precise act need not be foreseeable if the general type of harmful behaviour was foreseeable. Breach depends on the circumstances, including the nature and purpose of any access given to pupils and what was reasonably known about their reliability. A sensible practice of keeping classrooms locked may properly allow teachers discretion to give trusted pupils limited access.

The claimant, a teacher employed at Brampton Manor School, drank water contaminated with whiteboard cleaning fluid by a pupil who had obtained access to the claimant’s classroom. The claimant alleged that the defendant local education authority was vicariously liable for a teacher’s negligence in giving classroom keys to pupils and in moving a class to another classroom.

The court considered the school’s practice concerning classroom keys, foreseeability of injury caused by pupils’ conduct, the existence and scope of the employer’s duty of care, and whether the teacher’s conduct was negligent. The claimant also advanced claims for psychiatric injury and loss of earnings.

1. Duty and foreseeability. The defendant owed the claimant the duty of a reasonable employer. Foreseeability of loss alone was insufficient to establish a duty, but injury to teachers from mischievous or malicious pupil behaviour was not so improbable that it would be unreasonable or unjust to impose a duty to take reasonable precautions.
2. The precise act of poisoning was not reasonably foreseeable. However, the incident was within the general type of behaviour that could foreseeably follow if pupils were left unsupervised and engaged in a prank without understanding its dangers. The claim therefore was not defeated on remoteness or lack of foreseeability.
3. Breach. The school’s arrangements were not an absolute prohibition on giving pupils keys. They allowed teacher discretion, having regard to the pupil, the purpose and duration of access, and the place to which access was given. Giving two pupils keys for a short journey to collect folders was not negligent. Moving the class to the covering teacher’s classroom was rational and did not breach any duty owed to the claimant.
4. The evidence did not show that the covering teacher had reason to suspect that either pupil was likely to cause such mischief. Even knowledge of the pupil’s ordinary character would not necessarily have made giving limited access for that purpose unreasonable.
5. The claimant therefore failed to establish breach and judgment was entered for the defendant. The court nevertheless stated that, had liability been established, it would have awarded £15,000 for pain, injury and suffering and £25,000 as a Smith v Manchester award. The loss of earnings claim was not made out in any event.