Hammersley-Gonsalves v Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

A school is not negligent merely because a supervising teacher cannot observe every action of every pupil. The adequacy of supervision must be assessed in context, including the pupils’ age, previous instruction, behaviour, the activity and whether the accident was reasonably foreseeable. Where a pupil’s sudden misconduct is wholly unexpected, the teacher’s failure to observe it does not by itself establish breach of duty. A challenge based on inadequate staffing or supervision must be properly raised and supported by evidence. In addition, the claimant must prove that any alleged failure was causative of the accident on the balance of probabilities.

The respondent, a pupil aged nearly 12, was injured when another pupil unexpectedly swung a golf club during a supervised school lesson. The Middlesbrough County Court found that the teacher could not see what the pupils were doing and entered judgment for the respondent in damages of £21,000, with liability disputed.

The Council appealed. The central issues were whether the teacher’s inability to observe the swing amounted to negligent supervision and whether any failure to observe the incident was shown to have caused the injury.

The appeal was allowed unanimously. Lord Justice Pill delivered the leading judgment. Lord Justice Rimer and Lady Justice Black agreed.

1. The teacher could not reasonably be expected to observe every action of 22 pupils walking in single file. The pupils were aged 11 to 12, had received previous golf instruction, were generally well behaved, had been instructed not to swing their clubs, and the swing was wholly unexpected. The teacher’s failure to see the quick swing therefore did not establish a breach of the duty of care.

2. The respondent’s case did not allege that the school was negligent because the lesson was supervised by only one teacher, and the judge had made no finding of fault in the staffing ratio. In any event, on the circumstances found, closer supervision by additional teachers positioned to observe every pupil’s actions was not reasonably required. The system applied by the school was reasonable and met the standard of care required.

3. Even if the failure to observe the swing had been negligent, the respondent still had to prove causation. There was no finding that, on the balance of probabilities, any action by the teacher would have prevented the accident. The causative element of the claim was therefore also unestablished.

4. The judgment for the respondent was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the Council’s appeal.
• Middlesbrough County Court: District Judge Cuthbertson entered judgment for the respondent on 9 November 2011 for £21,000 with costs.