The Gazette 1984

GAZETTE

JULY/AUGIJST 1984

"In circumstances such as those in this case careful

supervision is essential, and the persons having

charge of the school are bound to see that there is

supervision of the playground during play intervals.

It was the duty of the principal teacher to see that

the playground was clear and not a source of danger

to boys playing there, who could not be expected to

keep their eyes fixed."

The boy was held not to have been guilty of

contributory negligence on the basis that ' [bjoys

naturally run in a playground"

and that the accident

took place, during a period of recreation, in a place

specially set apart for play which the boy "was entitled to

assume . . . was reasonably safe for this purpose."

Healy -v- Doddf

an eleven-year-old pupil was

injured when he fell while using handcuffs in a game

known as '"still" — where "police" arrested "poteen

makers". The use of handcuffs had been forbidden two

years earlier and a pair of handcuffs had been confiscated.

In order to keep up the deception of the game imaginary

handcuffs were put on by the boys after the real handcuffs

were taken by the master.

Two days before the accident

the handcuffs made their way back to the school —being

brought there by the son of the principal teacher,

unknown to him.

O'Byrne J. in the High Court dismissed the action. The

teacher had been supervising play at the time of the

accident and there was "nothing to arouse his

suspicion"

that the real handcuffs had returned.

The English decision of

Rawsthorne-v- Ottley

in 1937

suggests a degree of leniency towards school masters and

managers which would be unlikely to prevail today. A tip-

" Authorised Wang Dealer.

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

THE COMPANY

BCL are agents for Wang Word Processors and

Legal Accounting systems, to the Legal Profession

in Ireland. BCL are a growing company with over

25 systems already installed.

THE PERSON

The person we require would be a Qualified

Solicitor with a Marketing/Sales ability or

background. Knowledge of computer systems,

though not essential, would be an advantage.

THE REWARDS

An attractive remuneration package linked with

performance is offered, along with a car allowance.

Contact:

Mr. Rick Deegan,

Sales Director.

Tel. (01 604545/604578

Reply to:

REF: SOL APP

Business Computing and Law Limited,

55 Lansdowne Road,

Ballsbridge,

Dublin 4.

up lorry delivered coke in a school playground while the

children were at play. The children crowded on the lorry

when the driver had completed the task of unloading. The

effect was to make the tipping part suddenly tip up. The

children then quickly got on the lorry, so that the tipping

part fell back in place, crushing the leg of the plaintiff, a

thirteen-year-old boy.

The evidence disclosed that on the day of the accident

the headmaster had gone into the playground with the

boys, that he had see>n them start their games, and

"having other duties to attend to,"

had gone back into

the school building. He knew that it was the practice for

coke to be delivered to the playground but did not know

that it was being delivered that day since, it seems, he was

not particularly concerned as to when it might be

delivered.

Hilbery J. held that no action lay against the school.

Having stressed

that a schoolmaster is not required to

keep children under supervision all the time, he said:

"Having regard to the fact that the schoolmaster

did not know that the lorry was there, I find that

there is no negligence. It is said that he knew it might

have come. I still do not think that he should have

stayed [in the playgorund] lest such a possibility

should have become an event. Should he have

stopped its coming during playtime? I do not think

that that is lack of supervision, and it would

necessitate exra supervision."

This argument is unconvincing. The evidence makes it

plain that the headmaster, although aware that the coke

delivery lorry would visit the school yard, did nothing

either to prevent it from delivering during periods when

the children might be playing or to ensure that, if it came

at such a time, adequate supervision of the children would

be provided. To suggest that the headmaster was

legitimately taken by surprise in such circumstances is

implausible.

Hilbery J. also rejected the argument that the vehicle

was an allurement or trap:

"A lorry as such cannot be said to be an allurement

to children to-day. As to a tipping lorry, it was not

the tipping gear that brought about the accident. No

permission was given to the plaintiff to interfere, or

to other pupils to interfere. No one in authority

anticipatd that the pupils would interfcic or were

interfering. In my view, this disposes of the case

against the headmaster."

This passage is difficult to understand. Contrary to

what Hilbery J. says, it

was

the tipping gear that brought

about the accident, in the sense that it was part of the

attraction to the boys, and was involved in the incident

which resulted in injury to the plaintiff. Moreover, the

absence of express permission or specific foresight was

scarcely a strong factor against the plaintiffs case —

especially since the headmaster deprived himself or his

subordinates the opportunity to predict (and thus

prevent) the incident by leaving the boys play unsuper-

vised in the yard at a time when a delivery was possible.

Jackson

-v-

L.C.C.

a contractor, who was to carry

out certain repairs at a private elementary school, left "a

quantity of rough stuff'

composed of sand and lime in a

barrow in a corner of the school playground. The

headmaster, considering this to be dangerous, instructed

the school's caretaker to have it removed, but this was not

done. Two days after the barrel had been left in the

156