Question 4: Syme & Syme v Minister of Education (1970)

Question 1

Describe the Syme & Syme v Minister of Education (1970)

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

Did a duty of care exist in this case? Why?

Answer 2

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).

Question 3

Did the breach of duty of care contribute to the injury for which damages are sought? Explain

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

What was the foreseeable risk?

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

What was the main reason causation was determined

Answer 5

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.)

Question 6

What are the implications of these cases for teachers? Use a case example

Answer 6

• Early intervention - if you can see a risk of something occurring then there was no harm to the teacher
• Classroom management - no intervention or having no evidence of intervening. Personal classroom
• Have evidence to document what you have done
• With-it-ness
• Richards v State of Victoria (1968) – Teacher should have foreseen that a might take place causing injury and he should have intervened.
• Proximity to students
• Way you position yourself when you are teaching