The Supreme Court has dismissed County Wexford VEC’s appeal against a €50,000 damages award to a former pupil who suffered serious eye injuries when a chocolate bar struck him during lunch-time horseplay at school.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McCracken on 29 July 2004, upheld the trial judge’s finding that the school authorities had been negligent. The court said the circumstances, including a history of serious disciplinary problems, required the school to provide supervision during lunch in the area where the incident happened.
The pupil was 16 and among about 50 students in an area used by fifth- and sixth-year pupils. After a bag of chocolate bars burst, students began throwing bars around. The pupil said the horseplay lasted about 10 minutes, which the trial judge considered likely to be an overestimate. A bar struck him in the eye. No school staff were supervising the area that day.
The school had introduced a lunch-time supervision rota about two years earlier, dividing the school into four areas for teacher supervision. The measure followed serious incidents in 1996, including fights that resulted in about 20 pupils being expelled. Evidence before the court was that the rota generally provided reasonable supervision, but for an unexplained reason it was not operating on the day of the injury. The pupil said a teacher’s presence would have stopped the horseplay.
The appeal also challenged the treatment of contributory negligence. Counsel for the pupil had said in opening that he might concede throwing one or two bars, but in evidence the pupil denied throwing a bar at anyone. He said he threw one on the ground and moved to a window sill to avoid the bars. His counsel also disputed that he had engaged in excessive horseplay. The Supreme Court said the trial judge had to decide the case on the evidence, not possible concessions made in opening, and found no evidence of contributory negligence.
The court said schools are not insurers of pupils and constant supervision is not always required. The level of supervision depends on factors including pupils’ ages, the areas they use, numbers present and the school’s history of dangerous behaviour. In this case, it concluded that the school had a duty to provide lunch-time supervision in line with its rota. The appeal was dismissed and the trial judge’s decision confirmed.