To those of us with rose-tinted memories of school, it’s easy to forget that school days can involve a bit of rough and tumble.

What should you do if your child gets injured at school? And is our legal system in danger of wrapping pupils in cotton wool, so that schools start to deprive children of the sort of fun and games we used to take for granted?

Victoria Gallanders investigates.

For many of us a grazed knee in the playground was just part and parcel of growing up. And the courts too appreciate that children are bound to have some minor injuries when at school.

Sadly not all school injuries are minor.

Consider the recent case of Amy St Johnston, who became partially paraplegic after falling out of a school window.

And a school in Boston was fined £16,500 by the HSE after a 16 year-old girl lost most of her fingers to burns sustained from plaster of Paris in an art lesson.

Below are three common scenarios when a school pupil may suffer serious injury through no fault of their own:

Supervision – pupil is injured by another child who was insufficiently supervised

School equipment – pupil injured using school equipment

Poorly maintained grounds – pupil injured due to a school’s poorly maintained grounds.

Let’s examine each scenario...

Supervision

Schools and teachers are legally obliged to ensure pupils are safe at school. This includes preventing them from injuring themselves and one another.

The courts also accept that as children get older they will need less supervision, as they become more aware of the consequences of their actions. Therefore, an older pupil, even if poorly supervised may be held at least partially responsible by the courts for an accident at school.

Consider these two cases...

In Palmer v Cornwall County Council (2009) a year 9 pupil was hit in the eye by a rock thrown by a fellow year 9 pupil during their lunch break. The accident occurred on school fields and there was only one dinner lady supervising approximately 300 pupils from years seven to 10.

The Court of Appeal found that to have just one supervisor watching over the year 7 and 8 pupils and glancing at the year 9 and 10 pupils was negligent and the local authority was therefore ordered to pay compensation to the injured child.

However, this is contrasted with Pettican v Enfield LBC (1970) in which a child’s eye was poked by a piece of chalk when children were fooling around during indoor break time on a wet day. Although teachers had to supervise more than one classroom, the local authority was found not to be liable.

So, we see that liability was determined by the circumstances of each case.

In July 2009, the Hackney Gazette reported an all too familiar story of a pupil who broke his shoulder and arm in a road traffic accident with a motorcyclist outside his school.

It was noted that a school or local authority’s duty to supervise children can also extend to before and after the school day. Liability for such accidents has variously been found to lie with the motorist, the school and the local authority.

School equipment

If a child is injured when using defective or unsuitable playground apparatus or sports equipment, the school may be liable. Schools are also responsible for equipment including desks, scissors and test tubes.

Schools can also be liable if children play on equipment that is not suitable for their age. For example, climbing frames should not be too high for younger children, and there should be soft tarmac or bark chippings below them to minimise injury in case of a fall.

In Butt v Cambridgeshire and Ely CC (1970) a child was poked in the eye with a pair of scissors. The class was of nine and 10 year olds but the local authority was not found liable.

But the local authority in Black v Kent City Council (1983) was found liable when a seven year old was poked in the eye by sharp scissors, as blunt-ended scissors would have been more suitable for this age group.

Therefore if a child is injured by unsuitable or faulty equipment, they may be entitled to compensation but again the case will turn on its facts.


Poorly maintained grounds

The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 says schools must take reasonable care to ensure that pupils are safe when on school premises.

If a pupil trips over a raised pavement slab, or a divot in a playing field they could be entitled to compensation, if the school had not acted reasonably in not spotting and remedying the defect.

The key here is what the courts determine as ‘reasonable’.

The courts accept that a child cannot be expected to be as careful as an adult, and so there is a higher standard that schools must reach to escape liability.

Even if a pupil trespasses into an area that is out of bounds, a school could still be liable for any accident. The courts have schools liable for accidents involving skylights and fire escapes!

So in any case of serious injury, parents should contact a lawyer as soon as possible if they feel that their child has a claim.

On the other hand, courts generally accept that minor injuries are part of school life and that children should not be smothered in cotton wool.

Victoria Gallanders is a personal injury solicitor at Osbornes. If you wish to discuss a school accident or any other type of claim, she can be contacted on 0207 485 8811 or at victoriagallanders@osbornes.net