The issue of how much supervision schools are required to provide in the playground has again been tested in the recent High Court decision of Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn (as St Anthony’s Primary School) v Hadba [2005] HCA 31.

Nouhad Habda sued the trustees of the local Catholic school on behalf of his daughter Farrah after she lost four teeth and smashed her jaw in a playground fall. Farrah had been playing on a flying fox when two pupils grabbed her legs as she swung forward, causing her to fall and strike her face on a platform below. The issue for the Court was the adequacy of the supervision at school as well as the safety policies in place. The teacher on ‘yard duty’ at the time had several areas of the school to supervise and, at the time of the accident, had been momentarily distracted by other children who were in school classrooms during recess in breach of school policy. As well as staff supervising during recess and lunchtimes, the school itself has a “hands off” rule, where students were not allowed to touch each other when playing in the playground. All children were educated on the “hands off” rule and this was regularly reinforced in class and promoted around the school.

Mr Hadba’s claim centred on whether supervision of the play area was adequate and whether the supervising teacher’s responsibility should have been to supervise the playground only and not other designated areas at the same time. The ACT Court of Appeal had earlier ruled that the school’s supervision was inadequate. The Catholic Diocese of Canberra appealed this decision in the High Court.

The High Court ruled 4-1 in favour of the school. They determined that it was unreasonable to expect the school to assign a staff member to exclusively supervise the play equipment. The joint judgment stated: “The number of staff required, the financial and other costs of providing them and the narrowly specialised responsibility required of them are going well beyond the bounds of reasonableness.”

When discussing the “bounds of reasonableness” the judges took into account the teacher-pupil relationship and the need to develop responsible attitudes in the pupil: “Nor is it reasonable to have a system in which children are observed during particular activities for every single moment of time – it is damaging to teacher-pupil relationships by removing even the slightest element of trust; it is likely to retard the development of responsibility in children, and it is likely to call for a great increase in the number and supervising teachers and in the costs of providing them.”

The High Court decision highlights the need for schools to have rules and safety guidelines in place for the use of playground equipment by students, as well as a reasonable system of supervision by staff. While, in this instance, the school successfully defended its system of supervision, each case is determined on its merits, assessing the reasonableness of the systems each school applies in any given situation. n  

The issue of how much supervision schools are required to provide in the playground has again been tested in the recent High Court decision of Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn (as St Anthony’s Primary School) v Hadba [2005] HCA 31.

Nouhad Habda sued the trustees of the local Catholic school on behalf of his daughter Farrah after she lost four teeth and smashed her jaw in a playground fall. Farrah had been playing on a flying fox when two pupils grabbed her legs as she swung forward, causing her to fall and strike her face on a platform below. The issue for the Court was the adequacy of the supervision at school as well as the safety policies in place. The teacher on ‘yard duty’ at the time had several areas of the school to supervise and, at the time of the accident, had been momentarily distracted by other children who were in school classrooms during recess in breach of school policy. As well as staff supervising during recess and lunchtimes, the school itself has a “hands off” rule, where students were not allowed to touch each other when playing in the playground. All children were educated on the “hands off” rule and this was regularly reinforced in class and promoted around the school.

Mr Hadba’s claim centred on whether supervision of the play area was adequate and whether the supervising teacher’s responsibility should have been to supervise the playground only and not other designated areas at the same time. The ACT Court of Appeal had earlier ruled that the school’s supervision was inadequate. The Catholic Diocese of Canberra appealed this decision in the High Court.

The High Court ruled 4-1 in favour of the school. They determined that it was unreasonable to expect the school to assign a staff member to exclusively supervise the play equipment. The joint judgment stated: “The number of staff required, the financial and other costs of providing them and the narrowly specialised responsibility required of them are going well beyond the bounds of reasonableness.”

When discussing the “bounds of reasonableness” the judges took into account the teacher-pupil relationship and the need to develop responsible attitudes in the pupil: “Nor is it reasonable to have a system in which children are observed during particular activities for every single moment of time – it is damaging to teacher-pupil relationships by removing even the slightest element of trust; it is likely to retard the development of responsibility in children, and it is likely to call for a great increase in the number and supervising teachers and in the costs of providing them.”