Palmer v Cornwall County Council [2009] EWCA Civ
456
A pupil aged 14 was hit in the eye by a rock thrown at a sea
gull by another pupil. The accident happened during the school
lunch break. An action was raised against the local education
authority and proceeded to a trial on liability only. The claimant
relied on the Occupiers Liability Act and also common law.
The claimant failed at first instance, but appealed the common
law case. The Court of Appeal found the local authority to be
negligent on the basis of inadequate supervision.
The school arrangement was that the pupils ate their lunch
indoors and then would go outside for a period of free time, when
they could play games or relax. As the injured boy was aged 14,
this meant he played at a designated area for years 9 and 10 at one
end of a field. The opposite end was designated for years 7 and 8.
Supervision of the play areas on the field was organised on a rota
basis and was carried out by dinner ladies. There were two dinner
ladies on duty but they agreed between them that one would be
responsible for supervision outside and the other for supervision
indoors, moving to the outside as the building emptied of
pupils.
At first instance, the critical areas of dispute were (1) the
number of pupils under the supervision of the one supervisor; (2)
the appropriate ratio of supervisor to pupils so as to provide
proper supervision; (3) whether, as certain of the witnesses
maintained, throwing stones had occurred on a number of occasions
prior to this incident; (4) the length of time over which stones
were being thrown on the day in question; and (5) whether this
incident would have happened even with additional supervision.
On appeal, the court held that it would not be possible to say
that a certain ratio must be adhered to in each and every case; all
must depend on the circumstances and the assessment of risks. It
was accepted that younger children need closer supervision than
older children, but all children need a degree of supervision. The
court did not consider it was important that there should have been
previous incidents.
The court held that to have one dinner lady supervisor who would
be stretched to supervise over 150 pupils in years 7 and 8, only
glancing occasionally at years 9 and 10, was, in their view,
clearly negligent. If there were 300 pupils out in the field at the
time of the incident, of which it would seem clear that well over
half would be years 7 and 8, it was doubtful whether two
supervisors concentrating 100% on those age groups would have been
sufficient. Effectively, the children in years 9 and 10 were left
unsupervised. It was also observed that since the purpose of
appropriate supervision is to deter children taking part in
dangerous activities, as well as to stop the dangerous activities
as they do occur, a court should not be too ready to accept that
the dangerous activity would have happened anyway.
Contributed by Vikki Melville