LAW 1507 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Aust
23 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Omission
Teacher and student relationship
School Authority or State usually carries final responsibility
Employer is responsible for what teachers do
Cases to refer to
■Richards v State of Victoria [1969] VR 136
■Commonwealth of Australia v Introvigne (1982) 150 CLR 258
About case- A school authority owes to its pupil a duty to ensure that reasonable care is
taken of them whilst they are on the school premises during hours when the school is open
for attendance
The immaturity and inexperience of the pupils and their propensity for mischief suggest
that there should be a special responsibility on a school authority to care for their safety
State of Victoria v Subramanian [2008] VSC 9
About case: Principal and teacher owed duty to care for reasonable
harm, but this is unreasonable because that drain had been in
the school for many years and incredibly difficult to lift. Because
even if there was a sign saying don’t pick it up they most likely
would have picked it up anyway.
Australian Capital Territory v El Sheik (2000) Aust Torts Reports 81-577
... it ould euie a ay of supeisos to peet ay icidet that ight gie ise to a
physical ijuy
and
…Uless a educatioal authoity as pepaed to ipose a degee of egientation that
would be likely to provoke adverse community reaction, it would be impossible for
it to peet such icidets occuig.
Per Wilcox J at [25]
More cases to look at that are very useful (one was used in exam by me)
Parkin v ACT Schools Authority [2005] ACTSC 3 (28 January 2005)
Recognised a lesser duty in the playground than in the classroom.
Significant point: The injury was not only foreseeable but was foreseen
Bullying: Cox v State of New South Wales (2007) Aust Torts Reports 81-888
NB: Once duty is established the standard of care test is s31/32
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
School authority or state usually carries final responsibility. Richards v state of victoria [1969] vr 136. Commonwealth of australia v introvigne (1982) 150 clr 258. About case- a school authority owes to its pupil a duty to ensure that reasonable care is taken of them whilst they are on the school premises during hours when the school is open for attendance. The immaturity and inexperience of the pupils and their propensity for mischief suggest that there should be a special responsibility on a school authority to care for their safety. State of victoria v subramanian [2008] vsc 9. About case: principal and teacher owed duty to care for reasonable harm, but this is unreasonable because that drain had been in the school for many years and incredibly difficult to lift. Because even if there was a sign saying don"t pick it up they most likely would have picked it up anyway.
