| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 1 2014 SLD 1 2014 SCMR 258 |
Supreme Court of UK
On appeal from 2012 EWCA Civ 239, decision dated: 23rdOctober, 2013.
LADY HALE, DEPUTY PRESIDENT, LORD CLARKE, LORD WILSON, LORD SUMPTION AND LORD TOULSON
Christopher Melton QC and Ian Little (Instructed by Pannone LLP) for Appellant. Steven Ford QC and Adam Weitzman (Instructed by Essex County Council Legal Services) for
Respondent.
On appeal from 2012 EWCA Civ 239, decision dated: 23rdOctober, 2013.
LADY HALE, DEPUTY PRESIDENT, LORD CLARKE, LORD WILSON, LORD SUMPTION AND LORD TOULSON
Christopher Melton QC and Ian Little (Instructed by Pannone LLP) for Appellant. Steven Ford QC and Adam Weitzman (Instructed by Essex County Council Legal Services) for
Respondent.
WOODLANDvsESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL
Law:
Section:
Negligence----Duty of care---Non-delegable duty of care---School/Education authority---Non-delegable duty of care owed by a school/education authority to its pupils with respect to independent contractors performing functions on behalf of the school/education authority---Scope---Personal injury---Pupil suffering injury during a swimming lesson, which was organised by the school through an independent contractor---School/Education authority owed a non-delegable duty of care to ensure that reasonable care was taken to secure the safety of pupils who were attending school-swimming lessons conducted through an independent contractor. Appellant attended a primary school which was under the control of the respondent local education authority ("Education authority"). Pupils at the school attended swimming lessons in groups during school hours. Appellant was assigned to a group being taught by a swimming teacher, "B", and a lifeguard, "M", who was also in attendance. Neither "B" nor "M" was employed by the school and their services had been provided to the Education authority by "S", who was an independent contractor, and had contracted with the Education authority to provide swimming lessons to its pupils. During a swimming lesson, the appellant had an accident and suffered a serious brain injury. Appellant issued proceedings against numerous parties, including the Education authority, contending that "B" and "M" had been negligent, and that the Education authority's duty to her was non-delegable. Non-delegable duty of care should be imputed to schools only so far as it would be fair, just and reasonable to do so. Schools were employed to educate children, which they could do only if they were allowed authority over them. That authority confers on them a significant degree of control. When the school's own control was delegated to someone else for the purpose of performing part of the school's own educational function, it was wholly reasonable that the school should be answerable for the careful exercise of its control by the delegate. Parents were required by law to entrust their child to a school. They did so in reliance on the school's ability to look after them,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492