The Court heard an appeal by the school from a finding of liability where boys from the school were allowed to help a farmer by working in a field, unsupervised, and one of them was struck so badly in the eye by a clod of earth thrown amongst them during horseplay that his eye was lost. The claim against the headmaster that he was under a duty to arrange for the supervision of the boys whilst they were doing the work
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Scott LJ said: ‘The defendant, as headmaster, owed no duty to the boys to refuse to let them go to help the farmer in his need of labour without an under-master, or an under-nurse for that matter, in charge. The incident might have happened just as easily on a natural history expedition, or on any other country outing, on which the boys were regularly allowed to go without supervision. Indeed, it might have happened even if a master had gone for he might have been temporarily absent and the two boys who quarrelled might have done so during his absence.’
Goddard LJ said: ‘The question we have to determine is whether there was any breach of duty by the headmaster, his duty being that of an ordinary careful parent. I ask myself whether any ordinary parent would think for a moment that he was exposing his boy to risk in allowing him to go to a field with others to weed beet or lift potatoes, occupations far safer than bicycling about on the roads in these days.
I confess that I have some difficulty in appreciating the view taken by the judge. He found that the defendant failed in his duty by reason of a lack of supervision. If this means anything, it must mean that it is the duty of a headmaster to see that boys are always under supervision, not only while at work, but also at play, or when they are free, because at any time they may get into mischief. I should like to hear the views of the boys themselves on this proposition. Would any reasonable parent forbid his boy of 14 to go out with his school-fellows because they might possibly get up to mischief, as all boys will at times? Here at this school on free afternoons the boys are allowed out, their bounds being some 8 miles, and they are left to themselves, provided they are back by a certain hour. No complaint is made of this freedom. If there is nothing wrong in that, how can it be wrong to let a boy go with others to such a harmless occupation as doing some farm work of the most innocuous character? As Clauson LJ put it during the argument, if the headmaster is not guilty of any breach of duty in allowing the boys to go off for walks and so on by themselves, how can he become liable because during the walk they go and work in a field and meet with some accident while thus engaged? If he is liable in this case, so will he be if some boy does a mischievous act in the playing field which injures another while a master or prefect does not happen to be present, or while out for a walk climbs a tree and breaks his legs . .
Nor was there any duty on the master to ask the farmer to supervise the boys for their safety. How could it occur to anyone that there was any danger in the occupation? If every master is to take precautions to see that there is never ragging or horseplay among his pupils, his school would indeed be too awful a place to contemplate. Of course there was no supervision on this occasion. Nor was there any duty to provide it, having regard to the innocuous nature of the occupation. This case bears no anology to those in which boys have been allowed to handle dangerous chemicals or to be in proximity to dangerous machinery. There was no evidence, in my opinion, of any breach of duty whatever.
Boys of 14 and 16 at a public school are not to be treated as if they were infants at creches, and no headmaster is obliged to arrange for constant and perpetual watching out of school hours. For one boy to throw something at another is an ordinary event of school life, but the fact that there was in this particular case a disastrous and wholly unexpected result is no reason for throwing responsibility on the master.’
Judges:
Goddard, Scott LJJ
Citations:
[1941] 2 All ER 713
Cited by:
Cited – Woodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others QBD 17-Oct-2011
The court was asked as to the vicarious or other liability of a school where a pupil suffered injury at a swimming lesson with a non-employee during school time, and in particular whether it had a non-delegable duty to ensure the welfare of children . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, Personal Injury, Education
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.445628
