This blog was co-authored by William Hayne, Candidate Attorney.
In November 2024, the high court dismissed an action against the Department of Education for damages arising from injuries suffered by a school learner who was assaulted by another learner. The issue in dispute was whether the assault occurred during or after normal school hours.
The claimant sued the department on behalf of her son, a learner enrolled at a school catering for children with special needs. On 26 August 2016, the claimant’s son was collected by his driver, who was responsible for the daily transportation of the claimant’s son and others to and from school. On the same day, the claimant was informed by the driver that her son was assaulted by another learner and suffered head injuries and that her son was being transported to a clinic for medical treatment.
The claimant pleaded that the incident occurred during school hours when the claimant’s son had left the school premises unsupervised and unaccompanied. She alleged that her son was injured while under the care and supervision of the school and that the school and its employees negligently breached the duty of care owed to her son.
The claimant testified that the school’s gates were not locked, there was no security guard present when the incident occurred and unrestricted access to the school premises was permitted by the defendant’s employees. The school’s employees testified about the school’s supervision procedures and that the claimant’s son was found injured outside the school premises after school hours.
The driver testified that when he arrived after school hours and slightly late to collect the learners, he was informed that the claimant’s son was injured. He observed that the claimant’s son was bleeding, and he informed the school of the claimant’s son’s injuries. He refused to transport the claimant’s son home in his injured state.
Schools owe a duty of care to children on its premises and that teachers step into the role of parents, regarding care and supervision, during school hours and when the children are still in their care.
The evidenced revealed that the claimant’s son was assaulted after school hours. The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims of negligence against the school or its employees or breach of a legal duty. Even if a negligent breach of the duty of care was inferred, it was not foreseeable that the claimant’s son would have been assaulted outside school premises. The claimant could not prove that supervision would have prevented the injury either and causation was not established.
The court considered that the child’s driver stood in the place of the claimant from the time school ended until the claimant’s son was transported home. When equating the duties of the driver to that of a reasonably careful parent, the court held that a diligent parent of an intellectually challenged child would not have arrived late to receive the child after the school hours. The driver made no arrangements to contact the school regarding his unavailability to assume control and responsibility of the claimant’s son.
The court dismissed the claim.
This case highlights that schools are not liable when the school no longer has supervision of the children for incidents occurring outside school premises, outside of ordinary school hours and activities, that are not foreseeable and preventable by reasonable steps.