Other cases Flashcards
Describe State of Victoria v Bryar & Another (1970)
Synopsis
- Bryar was a student at a school in Victoria. He lost the sight of his right eye because of a pellet shot into it by another student during class.
- The teacher has disregarded unruly conduct as most of the class were shooting pellets at each other for over half an hour.
- The teacher said he was unaware of the firing of the pellets but said had he known of it, would have prevented it.
- The Chief Justice said that the breach of the duty of care must be causally related to the injury received.
- The High Court held that the sole question in the case was that of causation, and the evidence was that the teacher ‘actually saw’ the majority of the pupils shooting the pellets at each other and did nothing about it.
-The court reached the conclusion that causation had been established.
- The court take the approach that teachers are trained and skilled in classroom management and behaviour techniques and expect these to be fully utilised.
Did a duty of care exist? Why?
- Yes as there was a teacher-student relationship
- Yes but after 30 minutes (too late)
- Teacher had duty of care but had breached it by not disciplining the children in the class which led to the student then losing sight in 1 eye.
Did the breach of duty of care contribute to the injury for which damages are sought? Explain.
- Student lost sight in one eye from pellet being fired at him by another student. - Teacher did no duty of care as students were firing for 30 minutes prior.
- Court stated if the teacher ‘actually saw’ the pellets being shot by elastic bands, the need to intervene and take away the materials would have saved Bryar from the eye injury. Failed to intervene (breach of duty of care) has contributed to the damages (loss of sight in right eye)
What was the foreseeable risk?
- A student getting hurt from a pellet.
What was the main reason causation was determined?
-The High Court held that the sole question in the case was that of causation, and the evidence was that the teacher ‘actually saw’ the majority of the pupils shooting the pellets at each other and did nothing about it.
Describe the Syme & Syme v Minister of Education (1970) case
Synopsis: Queens Park PS, Year 1 Classroom (1970)
Students purchased toy planes/launchers from a nearby store that were fitted with an elastic band attached to a small rod. The principal saw the potential danger of these toys and stated that the toys were not to be played with in classrooms (close proximity) but were allowed on the oval (open area). This rule was followed and was reiterated again by the classroom teacher, stating that it would be confiscated if seen in the classroom. On the last day of school, students were cleaning trays, they disobeyed the rule and launched the toy plane inside the classroom which resulted in the plaintiff getting hit in the eye with the toy and was completely visually impaired in that eye.
Outcome of case: Staff and school were not found in breach of duty of care.
Did a duty of care exist? Why?
Duty of care did exist because there is a teacher-student relationship and toys were used on school grounds (in the classroom and on the oval).
Did the breach of duty of care contribute to the injury for which damages are sought? Explain.
The principal could not reasonably foresee the possibility of deliberate and intentional assault.
The teacher had no forewarning of this assault nor did she have any knowledge of the potential dangers from the misuse of toys that occurred.
What was the foreseeable risk?
Principal realised that there was some possibility of injury in a confined space (classroom), however on the oval in a opened space it was unlikely for injury to occur.
What was the main reason causation was determined?
Staff and school was not in breach of duty of care. The classroom teacher was not found negligent because she took all the appropriate measures against foreseeable risk. The court determined that a teacher cannot always have eyes on students (i.e. will need to mark work, have their back to the students to write etc.)
Describe Barker v the State of South Australia (1978)
Synopsis
The issue is the duty of care when a teacher is absent from a classroom, even if it’s for a brief moment. The plaintiff was 12 years old and was in her first year of high school. She hurt her neck when she fell from her chair when she was sitting at her desk. At the time of the incident, the teacher had briefly left the classroom, yet told the student repeatedly to stop rocking on the chair.
Did a duty of care exist? Why?
The first issue was whether such a short absence from the classroom was a breach of duty of care that the school owed to the students. The court noted that the duty of care was to be tested by what was reasonable. Both the principal and the classroom teacher spoke to the inevitability of short absences from the classroom. The judge concluded: to assert that the school must accept liability for a short, temporary
What was the foreseeable risk?
The risk is always there if a student is rocking on their chair, however, the teacher had repeatedly asked the student to stop, thus, this risk was not foreseeable by the teacher as the student was reminded of the expectations around it.
What was the main reason causation was determined?
As a result of this case, the judge concluded: to assert that the school must accept liability for a short, temporary absence of the teacher from the class and to have a teacher supervise this absence is to demand perfection. In the end, the judge concluded that there was no breach of duty of care.
Did the breach of duty of care contribute to the injury for which damages are sought? Explain.
No it did not, as the teacher had repeatedly asked the student to stop swinging on their chair, and that short absences from the classroom are inevitable and don’t directly cause neck injuries every time
Describe Bartley v Haines; Oliver v Haines Supreme Court (1989)
Synopsis
Two students were left alone in a science classroom during lunchtime. They were experimenting with two different chemicals trying to make an exploding volcano. The plaintiff (injured student) suffered burns to 18% of his body.
Did a duty of care exist? Why?
Yes because there is a teacher-student relationship present.
He breached his DOC by leaving them unsupervised.
He knew there would be some kind of reaction from the combination of two materials.
Did the breach of duty of care contribute to the injury for which damages are sought? Explain.
o Foreseeability of harm: The teacher should have foreseen that there would be a reaction of combining chemicals. Particularly when the aim was to produce a volcano.
o Magnitude of risk of harm occurring:
o Gravity of harm that may take place:
o Cost and practicality of preventing it: If teacher was present the situation would likely not of occurred. The teacher could not monitor the behaviours of the students or the way they were adding the chemicals together. For example, if the issue was caused by HOW the chemicals were added (ie. slowly/fast) the teacher being present could have offered guidance.
o Justification for running the risk:
· Additional factors include age and maturity
What was the foreseeable risk?
It was a foreseeable risk that an explosion would occur. The teacher should also have foreseen that if a chemical was to have touched the skin then injury would have occurred.
What was the main reason causation was determined?
The judge held that the teacher did know the purpose was for an explosion. He held that the teacher should have ‘apprehended danger in the use of a mix of chemicals’ and should ‘have made further enquiries which would then have resulted in this prohibiting their use or requiring safeguards’
The teacher was negligent in not being present to supervise the students
Contributory negligence was pleaded, but was not pressed
Describe Dunn v State of Victoria (1997)
Synopsis
Grade 5 student at a primary school in Victoria. Plaintiff was rehearsing school play when told to leave the room by other pupils. He then banged on the window from outside to disturb the rest of the class who were continuing to rehearse. One student shouted abuse but the plaintiff continued to hit window. This student then chased the plaintiff and threw a stone at him which it him in the left eye - resulting in a 25% partial impairment (cataract).
The school’s policy was to have two teachers circling the school on duty, but on the day of the incident only one was on duty. The school could not provide a valid reason why only one teacher was on duty.
Did a duty of care exist? Why?
Yes, because it was during school hours (recess) and it occurred on school grounds.
Teacher-student relationship existed at the time.
Did the breach of duty of care contribute to the injury for which damages are sought? Explain.
Yes, because there was only one staff member on duty instead of two. A second staff member supervising may have prevented the injury from occurring - no adequate explanation was provided as to why there was only one teacher on duty at the time.
What was the foreseeable risk?
Had there been two teachers on duty, it was likely the accident could have been prevented. It is likely that at least one of the two teachers would have intervened while passing by.
Unsupervised students = increase in unsafe/inappropriate behaviours which increases the risk of injury or damages.
What was the main reason causation was determined?
If there were two teachers on duty then the injury could have been prevented. Two teachers were required to supervise that specific area of students- this ratio was not fulfilled and an injury occurred.
Describe Geyer v Downes & Another High Court of Australia (1977)
Synopsis
* Was an 8 year old student who was accidentally with a softball bat by another student before school.
* The student received serious injuries including severe brain damage.
* It is to be noted that there was no teacher on duty supervising.
Did a duty of care exist? Why?
Yes because the accident happened at 8:50am but no teachers were required to be there till 9- but it was the principal choice to open the school ground 8:30 onwards to accommodate for working parents.
Due to proximity of the students, the known presence of the student being on school grounds was enough for teachers to have a duty of care.
Did the breach of duty of care contribute to the injury for which damages are sought? Explain.
Yes there was no supervision of the students, as the gates for the school were open prior to school hours allowing students to enter the campus - therefore no teacher watching to prevent student injury
What was the foreseeable risk?
Students were present on campus without supervision. The principal had occasionally advised students to engage in quiet activities like talking or reading before 9 am, when supervision commenced. However, this guidance was not consistently enforced or monitored. In the small area where the incident occurred was not meant for playing games, although this rule was not enforced at the time of the incident, occurring before 9 am.
What was the main reason causation was determined?
The principal opened the school gates knowing that students were arriving before 9am. Students were allowed to arrive on campus during a time period when there was no supervision.
