THE LIABILITY OF SCHOOLS FOR BULLYING

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-294
Author(s):  
Jesse Elvin
Keyword(s):  
Health And Safety ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
County Council ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Sussex County ◽  
Reasonable Care ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Court Of Appeal

InBradford-Smart v. West Sussex County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 07, Leah Bradford-Smart, a former pupil of a school maintained by West Sussex County Council, based her claim for damages for psychiatric injury and consequent loss on the school’s failure to prevent fellow pupils bullying her outside the school. It is clear that “a school is under a duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of the pupils in its charge” (Van Oppen v. Clerk to Bedford Charity Trustees [1990] 1 W.L.R. 235, 250), and that it also assumes responsibility for a pupil’s educational needs (X v. Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 A.C. 633, 766, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson; Phelps v. Hillingdon London Borough Council [2000] 2 A.C. 619). In Bradford-Smart, the Court of Appeal held that a school is generally responsible for its pupils only when they are inside the school, but that exceptional circumstances might arise when failing to take reasonable steps to combat bullying occurring outside the school would give rise to a breach of its duty of care to a pupil.

Education

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Fairgrieve ◽  
Dan Squires QC
Keyword(s):  
Physical Health ◽  
Learning Difficulties ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
County Council ◽  
Reasonable Care ◽  
General Duty ◽  
Taking Care

It has long been established that schools owe a duty to look after the physical health and safety of their pupils. The duty imposed on schools has since been extended to taking care of the ‘educational needs’ of pupils. This has led to the imposition of liability in cases of ‘educational negligence’. These cases have tended to involve a failure to diagnose and treat learning difficulties, though the courts have made clear that schools are under a general duty to ensure that reasonable care is taken in the provision of education. As Lord Browne-Wilkinson noted in X v Bedfordshire County Council, ‘the education of the pupil is the very purpose for which the child goes to the school’ and the school thus has a duty to ensure that the child’s educational needs are met, and not just that he or she is physically safe while at school.

Pubic authorities – negligence actions – control devices

Legal Studies ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Brodie
Keyword(s):  
County Council ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Common Thread ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
The Common ◽  
Control Devices

X (minors) v Bedfordshire County Council is by far the most important decision on the liability in negligence of public authorities since Anns v Merton London Borough Council. These two authorities, along with Dorset Yacht Co v Home Office, furnish the ground rules for such actions. The leading judgment in X v Bedfordshire CC, in which all his brethren concur, is given by Lord Browne- Wilkinson; the only other judgment being given by Lord Jauncey. The common thread running through this trilogy of cases is the emphasis on the significance of the element of discretion in the exercise of the statutory functions of a public authority: ‘Most statutes which impose a statutory duty on local authorities confer on the authority a discretion as to the extent to which, and the methods by which, such statutory duty is to be performed’.

Governmental Liability after Francovich

1993 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Caranta
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Community Law ◽  
District Council ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Governmental liability used to be on the retreat, especially but not only in the field of negligence liability. In Bourgoin S.A. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the majority of the Court of Appeal flatly stated that not every infringement of Community law was a tort. Moreover, in the recent decision in Murphy v. Brentwood District Council the House of Lords, departing from Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, dramatically curtailed any hope—or fear, it depends on the point of view—of development of governmental liability in the field of economic loss.

OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY: UNHEEDED WARNINGS

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 499-544
Author(s):  
C.A. Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Injuries ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Is there a difference between the duty of care owed by an occupier to a trespasser under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 and that owed to a lawful visitor under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, as far as personal injuries are concerned? Not really, in the light of Tomlinson v. Congleton Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 309, where the Court of Appeal (Ward and Sedley L.JJ., Longmore L.J. dissenting) held the defendant Council liable for spinal injuries sustained by an 18-year-old who dived into the Council’s lake, having seen one or more notices reading “DANGEROUS WATER: NO SWIMMING”, and hit his head on the bottom. His damages were reduced by two-thirds for contributory negligence.

Remoteness of damage in negligence: a rotten structure collapses

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-48
Author(s):  
Janet O'Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
London Borough ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Appeal Decision ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

INThe Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] A.C. 388, Viscount Simmonds expressed the hope that, by replacing directness (and its attendant “insoluble” problem, the search for breaks in the chain of causation) with reasonable foreseeability as the test for remoteness of damage in negligence, “the law will be simplified and . . . palpable injustice will be avoided”. Lawyers have long recognised that the first of these aspirations has failed dismally. Regrettably, the Court of Appeal decision in Jolley v. Sutton London Borough Council [1998] 1 W.L.R. 1546 provides a stark example of failure on both counts.

SLIPPING INTO UNCERTAINTY

2000 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 421-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.A. Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
North Sea ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Geological Investigation ◽  
The North ◽  
Latent Defects ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
The North Sea ◽  
Court Of Appeal

HOLBECK Hall Hotel stood on the cliffs at Scarborough with views over a lawn and rose garden to the North Sea. The undercliff below the hotel was owned by Scarborough Borough Council. Over the years, natural erosion of the coastline led to relatively minor landslips in the area. The Council engaged engineers to investigate them and remedial works were carried out in 1989, but in 1993 there was a massive landslip. The lawn and rose garden fell into the sea, and the ground under the seaward wing of the hotel collapsed so badly that the whole building had to be demolished. Its owner claimed damages from the Council, and Judge John Hicks Q.C., applying Leakey v. National Trust [1980] Q.B. 485, held the Council liable for breach of a “measured duty of care”. The Court of Appeal agreed that an occupier could be under such a duty to prevent danger to a neighbour’s land from lack of support due to natural causes, but held the Council not liable because it owed no duty in relation to latent defects which could only have been discovered by extensive geological investigation: Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd. v. Scarborough Borough Council [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1396.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document