Pook v Rossall School

Schools owe children in their care an enhanced duty of reasonable care, reflecting the children’s vulnerability, the school environment and the degree of control exercised by staff. The duty is not to reduce every risk to the lowest reasonably practicable level. In situations falling between inherently dangerous activities and ordinary sporting activity, teachers retain a measure of discretion and judgment. A court should be slow to substitute its own assessment for that of an experienced teacher who has considered the relevant circumstances. The occurrence of an accident does not establish negligence. A claimant must also prove that the breach caused the injury.

A ten-year-old pupil injured her elbow after falling while travelling with other pupils from changing rooms to a hockey pitch. She alleged that the school negligently allowed the pupils to run ahead without adequate supervision and failed to prevent them using a muddy verge. The school denied negligence and disputed the mechanism of the accident.

Her Honour Judge Beech dismissed the claim. She found that the pupil had tripped and fallen forwards while running, rather than slipped and fallen backwards, and held that allowing the pupils to run was not negligent. The pupil appealed, challenging the findings on supervision, breach of duty and causation.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The judge below was entitled to find that the pupil had tripped and fallen forwards while running, relying on contemporaneous hospital records and the accident report.

2. Schools owe children in their care an enhanced duty of reasonable care. The duty reflects the children’s vulnerability, the school environment, the equipment used, interaction between pupils and the degree of control exercised by teachers. It extends beyond the duty ordinarily owed by a parent at home. This was consistent with the approach in Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association [2014] AC 537.

3. The applicable standard was reasonable care in all the circumstances. The law did not require a school to reduce risk to the lowest reasonably practicable level. Some activities, such as running in corridors, would ordinarily be unacceptable; other activities, such as sporting activity, would ordinarily involve permissible risks. Intermediate situations require judgment by the teacher.

4. The court should be slow to condemn a teacher as negligent or substitute its own judgment where the teacher had relevant knowledge of the school, the environment, the pupils and the circumstances. The judge was entitled to take account of the controlled school environment, the pupils’ familiarity with the route, their behaviour, the staffing arrangements, the teacher’s experience and the reasons for allowing the pupils to run.

5. The finding that the pupil had tripped did not itself determine causation. On the evidence, the accident could have occurred whether she was running or walking. The pupil therefore failed to prove that the alleged breach caused her injury. The fact that an accident occurred did not justify a res ipsa loquitur conclusion.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): The appeal against the order of Her Honour Judge Beech dated 4 August 2017 was dismissed.
• Lower court: The claim for damages arising from the accident was dismissed.