Advertisement

Risk and Responsibility: Liability of School Authorities for Harm to Pupils

  • Sally VarnhamEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter considers the responsibility of school authorities for the physical, mental and emotional harm suffered by their pupils. It examines the potential for school liability for physical injury within the duty of care owed in the tort of negligence and the approach of the courts to what may reasonably be expected of educators particularly in light of civil liability legislation. It then considers the parameters of school liability for psychiatric harm caused by the intentional acts of others, such as bullying, cyberbullying and sexual abuse. It touches on developing initiatives towards practising citizenship and restorative practice aimed at reducing many of the threats to young people by school cultures characterised by respect and responsibility.

Keywords

School liability Negligence Personal injury Bullying Sexual abuse Restorative practice 

References

  1. Anders, J. (2015). Keeping kids in school and out of court: A study of education – Youth justice collaboration in the US, Scotland and Denmark. Canberra: Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia.Google Scholar
  2. Australia Capital Territory Schools Authority v El Sheik (2000) FCA 931 (11 July 2000).Google Scholar
  3. Bazley v Curry. (1999). 2 SCR 534.Google Scholar
  4. Belsey, B. (2007). Always on, always aware! bullying.org. 17 January www.cyberbullying.ca
  5. Buckley, S., & Maxwell, G. (2007). Respectful schools: Restorative practices in education a summary report. Office of the Children’s Commissioner and the Institute of Policy Studies, School of Government, Victoria University, Wellington.Google Scholar
  6. Bujnowicz v Trustees Roman Catholic Church [2005] NSWCA 457.Google Scholar
  7. Catholic Education Office Archdiocese of Melbourne, Student Wellbeing Central to Learning and School Improvement. (2007, October). http://web.spgww.catholic.edu.au/documents/policies/restorativejusticeresearch.pdf
  8. Commonwealth v Introvigne. (1982). 150 CLR 258.Google Scholar
  9. Cox v New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 471.Google Scholar
  10. Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew (1949) 79 CLR 370.Google Scholar
  11. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.Google Scholar
  12. Dwyer, A., & Easteal, P. (2013). Cyber bullying in Australian schools: The question of negligence and liability. Alternative Law Journal, 38(2), 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fallas v Mourlas [2006] NSWCA 32.Google Scholar
  14. Fronius, et al. (2016). Restorative justice in US schools: A research review. San Francisco: Wested Justice and Prevention Research Centre.Google Scholar
  15. Gregory v New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 559.Google Scholar
  16. H v Pennell and South Australia. (1987). 46 SASR 158.Google Scholar
  17. Hayden, A. (2001). Restorative conferencing manual of Aotearoa New Zealand. Wellington: Department for Courts.Google Scholar
  18. Hill v Van Erp. (1997). 188 CLR 159.Google Scholar
  19. Ipp, J. (2002). Report of the panel for the review of the law of negligence (the Ipp report). http:revofneg.treasury.gov.au/content/reports.asp
  20. Kretschmar v Queensland. (1989). Aust Torts Reports ¶80–272.Google Scholar
  21. Lisa Eskinazi v Victoria (County Court (Vic), Lewitan J, No 06471/99, 20 June 2003, unreported).Google Scholar
  22. Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215.Google Scholar
  23. Mazerolle, P., Legosz, M., & Finighan, P. Weapons in schools in Queensland: The nature, causes and responses (2011) Griffith University, Brisbane. www.behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/.../weapons-in-schools.pdf
  24. Miller v South Australia. (1980). 24 SASR 416.Google Scholar
  25. Morrison, B., & Vaandering, D. (2012). Restorative justice: Pedagogy, praxis, and discipline. Journal of School Violence, 11(2), 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. New South Wales v Lepore. (2003). 195 ALR 412; Samin v Queensland and Rich v Queensland (2003) 195 ALR 412.Google Scholar
  27. Osher, D., Bear, G., Sprague, J., & Doyle, W. (2010). How can we improve school discipline? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oyston v St Patrick’s College (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 310.Google Scholar
  29. Pelletier, R., Handal, B., Khalil, J., & Francis, T. (2015). Cyberbullying – When does a school authority’s liability in Tort end? The Western Australian Jurist, 6, 93.Google Scholar
  30. Perry-Hazan, L., & Birnhack, M. (2016). The hidden human rights curriculum of surveillance cameras in schools: Due process, privacy and trust. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(1), 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC [2016] HCA 37.Google Scholar
  32. Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer. (2007). 234 CLR 330.Google Scholar
  33. Rooney, T. (2010). Trusting children: How do surveillance technologies alter a child’s experience of trust, risk and responsibility? Surveillance & Society, 7(3/4), 344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Salmond, J. (1907). Salmond on Torts (1st ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. Schools should be sued for cyberbullying: Experts. Sydney Morning Herald, August 15 2013.Google Scholar
  35. Shariff, S., & Hoff, D. L. (2007). Cyberbullying: Clarifying the legal boundaries for school supervision in cyberspace. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 1(1), 76.Google Scholar
  36. St Mark’s Orthodox Coptic College v Abraham [2007] NSWCA 185.Google Scholar
  37. Sullivan, A., Johnson, B., Owens, L., & Conway, R. (2014). Punish them or engage them? Teachers’ views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn v Hadba [2005] HCA 31.Google Scholar
  39. Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) v Miller, Miller v Lithgow City Council [2015] NSWCA 320.Google Scholar
  40. Varnham, S. (2015, November). The role of Catholic schools in Australia in educating for human rights and social justice: An overview. Paper presented at the annual conference of the European education law association, within educating for today and tomorrow: A renewing passion, The World Catholic Education Congress, The Vatican, 18–21. (International Journal of Education Law and Policy Special Issue forthcoming).Google Scholar
  41. Varnham, S., Evers, M., & Booth, T. (2014–2015a). Valuing their voices: Encouraging responsibility and citizenship through student participation in school decision making. International Journal of Law and Education, 19(2) & 20(1), 23.Google Scholar
  42. Varnham, S., Evers, M., Booth, T., & Avgoustinos, C. (2014–2015b). Democracy in schools: Encouraging responsibility and citizenship through student participation in school decision making. International Journal of Law and Education, 19(1) & 20(1), 73.Google Scholar
  43. Watson v Haines. (1987). Aust Torts reports 80–094.Google Scholar
  44. Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40.Google Scholar
  45. Wyong Shire Council v Vairy [2004] NSWCA 247.Google Scholar
  46. X (minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (a minor) and another v Newham London Borough Council and others; E (a minor) v Dorset County Council; and other appeals [1995] 2 AC 633.Google Scholar
  47. Zehr, H. (1990). Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Herald Press: North Dakota.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia

Personalised recommendations