bulletin
Teacher poisoned by pupil fails to challenge colleague's discretion
31 July 2009
Earlier this month, the Court found that a teacher who gave
classroom keys to a pupil for a short period, simply for the
purposes of obtaining some folders, was not negligent even though
one of the pupils had, unbeknownst to the teacher, added whiteboard
cleaning fluid to a colleague’s bottle of water. Browne Jacobson
was instructed to represent the local authority.
The facts
A teacher brought a claim against Newham Council after a school
girl added whiteboard cleaning fluid to a bottle of drinking water
she kept in her desk. Whilst the claimant had been away from school
for a day, a colleague, Ms P, had given three pupils the keys to
access an unoccupied classroom for a short time to retrieve some
study material. When in the room, one of the pupils tampered with
the claimant’s water bottle. When the claimant returned to her
classroom she drank the contaminated water from the bottle and
suffered immediate physical injuries and, later, significant
psychological consequences. She brought a claim against the local
authority alleging that her colleague, Ms P, had negligently
allowed the three pupils unsupervised access to the classroom,
contrary to established practice.
The teacher claimed that, but for the incident, she would have
become a Head Teacher by 2012, and claimed loss of earnings of
nearly £700,000.
The findings
Although the Judge emphasised that he did not condone the
“disgraceful behaviour” of the pupil responsible, he found that the
girl who tampered with the water bottle did not set out to injure
the claimant, but rather indulged in a foolish prank. It was
reasonably foreseeable that pupils might get up to mischief if
granted access to a school room, even though the precise form of
mischievous behaviour might be not be reasonably foreseeable. The
Judge also found that a duty of care was owed by the local
authority to the claimant, to take such precautions as were
reasonable in all the circumstances to minimise the risk to
teachers of such an injury.
The school had a general practice of disallowing students into
unoccupied classrooms, but this practice was subject to the
teachers’ discretion. The Judge found that it would be “absurd” to
suggest that teachers should not be able to exercise their
discretion to grant pupils access to an unoccupied classroom for a
short period for the purposes of retrieving materials. In this
case, Ms P had no reason to suspect that the poisoner was likely to
do what she did. In the circumstances, it could not be said that Ms
P was negligent.
He also discussed the claim for significant loss of earnings,
finding that it was unlikely the claimant would have continued as a
secondary teacher at all due to stress. There had been lack of
candour on the part of the claimant, for example, she had not
divulged to the medical experts or her solicitors her history of
psychological illness. It therefore followed that in some respects,
the claimant was not credible. Had her claim been successful, the
Judge would have awarded just £40,000.
The claimant’s solicitors had put in a schedule of legal costs
to trial that were three times those of the local authority. These
are not recoverable from the council. Furthermore, as she lost, the
claimant will now be liable to pay the council’s costs.
Practice points
- In today’s litigious climate teachers would not be blamed for
thinking they must do everything possible to exclude all risks to
themselves and to their colleagues. This is not the case. In this
case, it was found that the school quite properly prevented pupils
having unlimited access to classrooms. The risk of theft or
vandalism was obvious. However, all Ms P did was to give keys to
girls whose character she had no reason to doubt, simply for the
purposes of picking up some folders and return. As the Judge put it
“…it would in my view be absurd to suggest that teachers should not
have a discretion to ask pupils to pop along a corridor to get
something from another classroom”.
- Here there was no written policy about the locking of
classrooms, although the Judge found the school's practice of
disallowing students access to unoccupied classrooms, subject to
the teachers' discretion to make exceptions, was sensible. We
suggest that schools draw up well publicised policies for the
locking of rooms and the handing out of keys. The policies can
provide guidance to teachers as to whether, and when, they entrust
keys to students, and should make it clear that professionals may
exercise their discretion in a common sense way.
- We believe that one of the reasons this case was successfully
defended was the commitment and professionalism of the school and
its teachers. They worked hard to make sure all relevant documents
were located and to give honest accounts of their involvement with
the claimant and the pupils concerned.
- Although the claimant (or her insurers) are due to pay the
council’s legal costs, the school will not be compensated for the
time and energy its staff expended on dealing with this case.
talk to us
save to PDF
The content of this bulletin is provided for the purposes of
general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries
of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive
statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does
not provide a substitute for it.