0370 270 6000

Gouth v Upshire Primary School, Queens Bench Division

19 February 2001
The issues

Accident to Child at School – Contributory Negligence – Standard of Discipline

The facts

The Claimant fell from a banister 12 feet and sustained serious head injuries. A class was in progress at the time of the accident and the Claimant and a number of other children were visiting the toilet.

The stairway and banister had been there since the school was built in 1939 and confirmed to applicable building regulations. There had been no reported similar incidents in the history of the school. Discipline was generally of a high order at the school and the Claimant was ordinarily a well-behaved child aware of ordinary dangers. Signs were present on or near the stairway illustrating the danger of running and the rule to keep to the right.

The decision

The test was whether or not the school could reasonably have foreseen that a pupil might attempt to slide down this banister and if foreseeable, whether the risk that a pupil might do so was such as to require preventative measures to be aimed at that risk. The school could not be held to be negligent however in failing to take steps against a possibility which although foreseeable was considered no more likely than many other risks which might befall children at school. In terms of contributory negligence, any contribution to the responsibility to the accident will be less for an 8-year-old child than for an adult. However, if the school had been found in breach of duty “a substantial percentage of contributory negligence would have been findable even against an 8 year old simply because clearly he knew there was serious danger involved in what he was doing”.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.

View

Blogs

Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.

View

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.

View

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

View

The content on this page 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.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up