Woodland v Maxwell & Anor

Swimming teachers and lifeguards must exercise reasonable care appropriate to their distinct responsibilities. A teacher supervising children in the water may be negligent by failing to notice a child in difficulties for a substantial period where there is no legitimate distraction. A designated lifeguard has an additional and distinct safety function. The lifeguard must remain alert, maintain effective observation of all pool users and intervene when necessary. Observation from a poolside may be reasonable in some circumstances, but the lifeguard must still choose an effective position and may need to stop entry into the water if safe observation is not possible. Where failures by both the teacher and lifeguard materially contribute to delayed rescue, liability may be established against each responsible defendant and against an organisation owing a non-delegable duty.

The claimant, a ten-year-old pupil, suffered severe brain injury after becoming submerged during a school swimming lesson. She brought negligence claims against the swimming teacher and the designated lifeguard, and against Essex County Council on the basis of a non-delegable duty.

The claim against the Council had previously been struck out, and that decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court restored the claim in [2013] UKSC 66. The present trial concerned the primary facts, whether the teacher and lifeguard had fallen below the required standard of care, and whether their failures caused or materially contributed to the claimant’s injuries.

1. Outcome. The claimant succeeded on liability. The court found both the swimming teacher and the designated lifeguard negligent. Their failures caused or materially contributed to the claimant’s injuries, and the third defendant was liable for their negligence.
2. Teacher’s duty. The timing evidence established that the claimant had been in difficulties for at least 30 seconds before being noticed. The court accepted that swimming teachers cannot be expected to identify every incident instantly. However, the teacher had no legitimate distraction sufficient to explain failing to notice a pupil in difficulties for that period. That failure fell below the standard reasonably expected of a teacher supervising children in the water.
3. Lifeguard’s distinct role. The lifeguard’s function was an additional safety feature, distinct from the swimming teacher’s class responsibilities. Her role in scanning the pool was paramount. A lifeguard need not remain in the chair at all times, since conditions may make another position more effective. The lifeguard must nevertheless remain alert, maintain effective observation of all pool users and intervene where necessary. If the lesson began before she reached an effective observation position, she could have stopped further entry into the water until she could scan effectively.
4. Application. The lifeguard had sufficient time to observe the claimant during the period in which the near-drowning process was underway. Her failure to notice the claimant until another person drew her attention to the incident showed that she was not paying sufficient attention to users on the opposite side of the pool. Earlier observation would have allowed the alarm and rescue process to begin sooner.
5. The court rejected the suggestion that a primary cardiac event caused the injuries. The claimant’s injuries resulted from near drowning, and earlier detection and rescue would probably have avoided them. The contribution claim against the first and second defendants was adjourned for consideration if necessary.

• Supreme Court. The earlier strike-out decision was reversed in [2013] UKSC 66, allowing the claim against Essex County Council based on a possible non-delegable duty.
• Court of Appeal. The High Court’s strike-out decision had been upheld.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). The present court determined the primary facts and found both the swimming teacher and lifeguard negligent.