0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

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

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.


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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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