0370 270 6000

Simonds v Isle of Wight Council, High Court, 23 September 2003

1 October 2003
The issues

Playing fields – children- supervision – swings.

The facts

The Claimant was a 5-year-old boy having a picnic with his mother during a lunchtime break in his school sports day. The sports day was held on playing fields in a village near to the small primary school he attended. After the events had restarted, his mother decided to go shopping and told the Claimant to go back to the teachers. As she left the field, she saw him halfway between where they had had their picnic and where the events were taking place. Moments later she heard a cry and rushed back to find the Claimant lying by some swings. The Claimant had not gone back to his teachers, but instead had gone to play on his own on the swings, some 50 metres away from where the games were taking place. He had jumped off and broken his arm. On a preliminary visit to the playing fields the head teacher had inspected the swings and found them to be in good condition. However she identified swings as a “potential hazard” and resolved that they should be out of bounds during sports day. That the swings were to be out of bounds was known by all the staff and was communicated informally to the parents on sports day. In his Particulars of Claim the Claimant alleged that the accident had been caused by inadequate supervision. The County Court Judge rejected this case, holding that no amount of supervision would have prevented the Claimant from jumping from the swing. However the Judge found the Defendant liable on the basis that, having identified the swings as a “potential hazard”, it ought to have taken further steps to neutralise the hazard, by immobilising the swings, by restricting access to them or by warning the parents of the hazard. The Defendant appealed to the High Court Judge.

The decision

1.The swings were not defective in themselves. The school had a reasonable plan for dealing with them as a potential hazard to small children.

2.It was not reasonable to impose a legal duty on a school to immobilise swings, anymore than it would be to rope off a tree on the playing field. Playing fields could not be made free of all hazard.

3.It was “slightly unreal” to suggest that the school owed a legal duty to warn the Claimant’s mother of the hazards of unsupervised play on swings.

4.In any event, the Claimant’s mother had not delivered the child back into the care of the school before the accident occurred.

5.There was no breach of any duty by the school.

Appeal allowed.


For further information, please contact David Sanderson, Counsel for the Isle of Wight at sanderson@12kbw.co.uk

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.



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.


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.


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