Advertisement
NetDocuments
Advertisement
NetDocuments

Student bullied trying to board bus

Keywords

Negligence – duty of care – school student – bullying – assault not on school premises – after school hours.

Facts

On 16 October 2017, a 14-year old student (“the plaintiff”) was attacked by 12 fellow students in an unprovoked, aggressive and lengthy attack.

The students had positioned themselves so the plaintiff was prevented from boarding the school bus and then led him to a park across from the school where the assault occurred.

The “ringleader” of the attack had recently returned to the school following a suspension for violent conduct and was also known to enlist the assistance of other students to carry out attacks on vulnerable students.  

The plaintiff commenced proceedings against the State of New South Wales (“the defendant”) as occupiers of the school and for having the care, management and control of the school where the plaintiff and his attackers were students.

It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant owed him a duty as a student, and had breached that duty of care by failing to monitor students as they were going home at the end of a school day.

Advertisement
TR CoCounsel

At trial, there were a number of issues for the court to consider including the nature and scopeof the school’s duty, whether there was a breach of the duty of care, causation and quantum.

Decision

Harrison AsJ delivered 25 October 2024.

The plaintiff’s claim was successful. Damages and costs were awarded.

Ratio

Duty of care

The defendant submitted that its duty of care did not extend to preventing incidents which took place outside of its operating hours and off school grounds. It also submitted that it should not be responsible for the criminal acts of third parties.

The Judge considered the Department of Education guidelines which provides that the duty of care owed to high school students extends beyond school hours and beyond school grounds. The principal of the school was also aware that prior violent altercations had occurred in the park where the plaintiff was attacked.

Advertisement
TR CoCounsel

Justice Harrison held that the school owed a duty of care to:-

  1. Vulnerable students who have physical or psychological issues;
  2. Keep students safe from being bullied and assaulted from other students;
  3. Perform a proper risk assessment for school students who have been suspended for a lengthy period before allowing them to return to school;
  4. Keep the administrative office open at the end of day so that students who find themselves in difficulty can seek help and safety there; and
  5. Provide supervision in and around the school for the safe passage of students for their journey to home from school.

Breach of duty and causation

The Judge concluded the school breached its duty of care in several respects, including by failing to conduct a proper risk assessment of the student who coordinated the attack before allowing him to return to the school from a previous suspension. The school was aware of this problematic student’s tendencies to violence and ought to have monitored his behaviours more closely.

Additionally, the school was aware that the plaintiff had been bullied in the past and was a vulnerable student given his psychiatric disorders, and as a result there was a higher risk that he would be bullied.

The school also failed to have any teachers on bus duty who could act as a deterrent or to intervene when the attack occurred. Further, the school’s administration office was closed so the plaintiff could not seek assistance.

These various breaches enabled the assault to occur in the manner in which it did and justified a finding of causation.

Advertisement
TR CoCounsel

Damages were awarded in a sum to be determined after further calculations were made from the parties.

Share this article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search by keyword