The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court finding that a school was liable after a pupil injured his finger using a bandsaw in woodwork class. It also dismissed the pupil’s challenge to an order limiting the costs recoverable to those applicable in the Circuit Court.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Noonan on 26 July 2023, concerned an accident on 8 March 2019. The pupil, then 16, was using a bandsaw to cut small pieces of wood for a school project when his right index finger came into contact with the blade.
At trial, the pupil said he had been sent to use the machine without supervision or instruction from the teacher in the classroom. The teacher gave a different account: he said he set up the machine, demonstrated the first cut and watched the pupil from about five feet away. The High Court judge preferred the teachers’ evidence on the training and the events leading up to the accident, but found the pupil had not received the close supervision this particular task required.
The Court of Appeal rejected the school’s argument that the finding of liability rested on a case the pupil had not pleaded or advanced. It said supervision had been central throughout the case, and the dispute was about the level of supervision required and provided. The court accepted that the High Court’s view that the teacher could not see the pupil’s fingers was not supported by witness evidence. It said that did not undermine the result: the teacher had not seen the accident, and the court concluded that proper supervision required him to keep the pupil’s hands under observation at the point of greatest danger.
The court said the required standard of care could be assessed by the judge from the circumstances, including the pupil’s age, limited experience with the machine and the danger involved. Expert evidence on woodworking teaching was not required. It stressed that its conclusion was specific to the facts of this case and did not set a general supervision rule for school machinery classes. The school’s appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court’s €35,000 general damages award undisturbed.
The pupil’s cross-appeal concerned the differential costs order. He argued that the case had broader significance for schools, that uncertainty about his injury justified bringing it in the High Court, and that the school should have sought to remit it to the Circuit Court. The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. It agreed that the claim was within the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction and upheld the costs order. The cross-appeal was dismissed.
On costs in the appeal, the court gave a provisional view that each side should receive its costs for the appeal on which it succeeded. The parties were given 14 days to make written submissions on any alternative order; if none were received, the proposed order would be made.