Duty Of Care Case Study

908 Words2 Pages

Supervision Outside of Normal School Hours
The duty of care extends to children not only during school hours but also outside of school hours where the students are on school property. It is common practice for parents to leave pupils at the school before hours or collect them after hours, and in that acceptance, is the obligation of the school to provide supervision. This is something which needs serious consideration in my own context as some students arrive on the premises thirty minutes before school starts. The school’s liability could be extended if it habitually assumes responsibility for its pupils beyond the limits of the school day or has given rise to an expectation of supervision prior to opening time, or beyond closing time. …show more content…

In Koffman v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for Diocese of Bathurst, Sheller J. highlighted that the duty of care does not begin when the child enters the school grounds and terminate when they leave. The decision in this case reinforces the importance of supervision. It highlights the need for precision in the words used to advise parents of risks to pupils and the limits of responsibilities which school authorities will undertake, before and after school. Interestingly, in Mays v Essex County Council the judge refuted that parents had a right to impose responsibility on teachers outside school hours. An important element in this case was that the school principal had written to parents advising them not to send their children to school too early due to lack of supervision. This is something that is required in my own …show more content…

Supervision is crucial as children can be boisterous and harder to control when outside the confines of the school. In MS Grewal v Deep Chand Sood, following the deaths of fourteen students, the Supreme Court of India imposed liability on a school for the negligent supervision of students when on a picnic trip to a riverbank. School authorities have a non-delegable duty to students to ensure that reasonable care is taken for the safety of children. The school authority cannot avoid responsibility by delegating the duty of care to someone else. The school is liable for a child who is injured even if school employees were not involved in running the activity or if took place outside the school’s premises. It is incumbent for the school authority to satisfy itself that external organizations employed are competent, thorough and professional. As with the case of Brown v Nelson, a pupil was injured on a camp when a cable broke on a rope course. Although the school authority was not expected to have expert knowledge of the procedures and equipment being used, it was expected to continue to discharge its duty of

Open Document