A child on a school skiing trip, had been injured whilst skiing on-piste, but unsupervised. The school appealed a finding of liability.
Held: The teachers and supervisors owed the same duty of care as a reasonably careful parent with some knowledge and understanding of the dangers of skiing. Allowance had to be made for the child’s own level of competence and the duties to the rest of the group. There was no duty to ensure his safety against injury from skiing mishaps such as those that might result from his own misjudgment or inadvertence when skiing unsupervised on-piste. The court set out the detailed standard of care owed by a school to its pupils.
Auld LJ said: ‘Where there are a number of options for the teacher as to the manner in which he might discharge that duty, he is not negligent if he chooses one which, exercising the Bolam test (1957] 1 WLR 582), would be within a reasonable range of options for a reasonable teacher exercising that duty of care in the circumstances.’
Lord Justice Auld
Times 15-Jul-2002, Gazette 22-Aug-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 915, [2003] PIQR P6
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kearn-Price v Kent County Council CA 30-Oct-2002
The claimant was injured, being hit in the face by a football in a school playground. It was before school started. There had been accidents, and there were rules which had not been enforced. The school appealed a finding of negligence.
Held: . .
Cited – Connor v Surrey County Council CA 18-Mar-2010
The claimant teacher said that she suffered personal injury from stress after the board of governors improperly failed to protect her from from false complaints. The Council now appealed against an award of substantial damages.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.174115 br>