An analysis of the reasons for the judges decisions in each of the hearings including the basis on which liability was established or dismissed and the role of the persuasive precedent. Refer to two of the cases used in each hearing and how the judges used these.
In the first hearing the judge chose to dismiss the liability factor as they believed the school could not do anymore to prevent a one off incident such as this. One of the precedent cases used was; Romel El-Sheik v. Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, Raymond Liverpool and Tony Exposito [1999] ACTSC90, “it would require an army of supervisors…but it seems to me that is all it can do.” This argument in the case helps to persuade the judge to make their decision based off …show more content…
The precedent cases used looked at the way which negligence was found; Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1980) 146 CLR 40 “In deciding whether there has been a breach of the duty of care the tribunal of fact must first ask itself whether a reasonable man in the defendant’s position would have foreseen the risk of injury…If the answer be in the affirmative, it is then for the tribunal of fact to determine what a reasonable man would do by way of response to the risk.” Another case used was Beaumont v Surrey County Council (1968) 66 LGR 580 at 585 “…it is a headmaster’s duty, bearing in mind the known propensities of boys and indeed girls between the [relevant] ages, to take all reasonable and proper steps to prevent any of the pupils under his care from suffering injury from inanimate objects, from the actions of their fellow pupils, or from a combination of the two.” This case is showing how much responsibility principals and teachers have and how much they must do to provide a reasonable duty of …show more content…
One of the precedent cases; Rich v. London County Council [1953] 1 WLR 895 at 903, "You can supervise as much as you like, but you will not stop a boy being mischievous when your back is turned, that, of course, is the moment that they choose for being mischievous," shows that no matter how much supervision is given, as soon as a teacher is distracted students will misbehave. Another precedent case; The Commonwealth v Introvigne [1982] 150 CLR 258 at 271, “In determining the probability of an occurrence, the vulnerability of the person at risk is a critical factor. A risk may have a low probability of occurring when the person is a mature adult of ordinary intelligence. It may have a high probability of occurring when the person at risk is a small child…Negligence doctrine will generally impose a higher standard of care on a person who creates or is responsible for a risk of injury to an employee, a prisoner or a school child than it will impose in respect of many persons falling outside those categories,” is provided to convince the judge that the duty of care has been breached as the supervision provided was not
In the first hearing the judge chose to dismiss the liability factor as they believed the school could not do anymore to prevent a one off incident such as this. One of the precedent cases used was; Romel El-Sheik v. Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, Raymond Liverpool and Tony Exposito [1999] ACTSC90, “it would require an army of supervisors…but it seems to me that is all it can do.” This argument in the case helps to persuade the judge to make their decision based off …show more content…
The precedent cases used looked at the way which negligence was found; Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1980) 146 CLR 40 “In deciding whether there has been a breach of the duty of care the tribunal of fact must first ask itself whether a reasonable man in the defendant’s position would have foreseen the risk of injury…If the answer be in the affirmative, it is then for the tribunal of fact to determine what a reasonable man would do by way of response to the risk.” Another case used was Beaumont v Surrey County Council (1968) 66 LGR 580 at 585 “…it is a headmaster’s duty, bearing in mind the known propensities of boys and indeed girls between the [relevant] ages, to take all reasonable and proper steps to prevent any of the pupils under his care from suffering injury from inanimate objects, from the actions of their fellow pupils, or from a combination of the two.” This case is showing how much responsibility principals and teachers have and how much they must do to provide a reasonable duty of …show more content…
One of the precedent cases; Rich v. London County Council [1953] 1 WLR 895 at 903, "You can supervise as much as you like, but you will not stop a boy being mischievous when your back is turned, that, of course, is the moment that they choose for being mischievous," shows that no matter how much supervision is given, as soon as a teacher is distracted students will misbehave. Another precedent case; The Commonwealth v Introvigne [1982] 150 CLR 258 at 271, “In determining the probability of an occurrence, the vulnerability of the person at risk is a critical factor. A risk may have a low probability of occurring when the person is a mature adult of ordinary intelligence. It may have a high probability of occurring when the person at risk is a small child…Negligence doctrine will generally impose a higher standard of care on a person who creates or is responsible for a risk of injury to an employee, a prisoner or a school child than it will impose in respect of many persons falling outside those categories,” is provided to convince the judge that the duty of care has been breached as the supervision provided was not