Schools have a duty to safeguard the well-being of their students and must take reasonable steps to prevent harm to those in their care. Therefore, a school may be held responsible if a student is injured as a result of inadequate supervision.

Schools owe a non-delegable duty of care to their students. This duty includes providing a safe environment to minimise the risk of foreseeable harm. While accidents are inevitable, a school can be held liable in negligence if it fails to uphold its duty and a student is injured as a result.

In determining negligence, a court will assess whether the school's actions were appropriate in the circumstances and whether those actions (or inactions), caused the injury.

In this article, we explore the potential liability of a school for inadequate supervision, highlighting common risk factors that should be considered and actively addressed.

In Abraham bht Abraham v St Mark's Orthodox Coptic College and Ors [2006] NSWSC 1107 (Abraham), a nine-year-old student at St Mark's Orthodox Coptic College (College) was seriously injured after climbing onto and falling from a first-floor balustrade at around 8:05 am. The plaintiff argued that the school breached its duty of care by failing to provide adequate supervision at that time. 

The school argued that their 'formal supervision' regime, which ran between 8:30 am and 8:40 am (similar to that conducted during recess), was sufficient. It further noted that before 8:30 am, there was 'informal supervision' by staff members as they arrived and moved through the school at varying times. 

In finding for the plaintiff, the Court determined that the injury resulted from a systemic failure in supervision and emphasised that adequate supervision "could have and most probably would have prevented this injury" opining that the mere presence of a teacher could deter misbehaviour and reduce the likelihood of incidents like the one experienced by the plaintiff.

In particular, the Court noted that the College had "accepted" the practice of students attending the school "without discouragement" from before 8:00 am and that "at the time that the College opened the gates and accepted students, it was under a duty to take reasonable care of them." 

Abraham reinforces that a school’s duty of care can extend to its students even before the school day 'officially' begins.

In Roman Catholic Church Trustees for the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn v Hadba (2005) 221 CLR 161 (Hadba), an eight-year old student of St Anthony's Primary School was injured when two students pulled her from a flying fox. The students had breached the school's ‘‘hands off’’ rule, which prohibited students from touching one another in the playground. Students were regularly reminded of the rule in assemblies, in class, and by way of posters. 

On the day of the incident, two teachers were rostered for recess supervision duty, with one overseeing the flying fox whilst also occasionally surveying other parts of the playground. When the incident occurred, the supervising teacher’s attention was directed towards a different area, and she was unaware that it had occurred until approximately 30 seconds later. 

The plaintiff argued that the school had breached its duty by failing to ensure the teacher focused solely on supervising the flying fox. 

Acknowledging that teachers "cannot be everywhere at once", the Court ruled that constant supervision of the playground was "beyond the bounds of reasonableness" due to staffing limitations and its associated costs. It also noted that a system of constant monitoring could undermine teacher-student relationships. Further, the plaintiff could not demonstrate how continuous supervision of the flying fox, or an alternative system, would have prevented her injury.

Hadba underscores the importance of reasonable supervision and highlights the need for clear and regularly communicated safety protocols, such as the "hands off" rule.

In Strath v State of New South Wales [1999] NSWSC 391 (Strath), the plaintiff alleged he was severely injured after falling and striking his head on a log play structure, known as the "fort," located at Cabramatta Primary School, outside school hours. 

Access to the structure was easily gained by climbing over a short brick fence, and evidence showed the school grounds were regularly used by children for play outside school hours, with the school’s knowledge. The plaintiff, then eight years old and a student of the school, commenced legal proceedings fifteen years after the incident. He argued, amongst other things, that the lack of supervision and failure to restrict access to the fort area contributed to the accident and his injuries.

The Court found that the school was not in breach of its duty. The Court acknowledged several measures that were taken to prevent unauthorised access to the grounds, including: 

1. during assemblies, students were reminded of school hours, specifically not to enter the grounds before 8:30 am or return after school or on weekends to play; 

2. at the start of each term, students received copies of newsletters which were translated into multiple languages, outlining the school's supervision policies and emphasising that the grounds were "Out of Bounds" outside school hours, including weekends; and 

3.  the Deputy Principal regularly patrolled the grounds after hours when present at the school, asking unauthorised persons to leave the premises. 

Strath provides helpful guidance for reasonable measures that schools can to take manage risks. 

As the above cases have shown, a school cannot completely eliminate the risk of injuries, however, various measures could be adopted to reduce liability and enhance student safety, including: 

1. ensuring adequate and reasonable supervision - clear policies regarding supervision before and after school, during recess, sports activities, and transitions between classes should be established; 

2. implementing and enforcing clear safety and emergency protocols, which are regularly reviewed and communicated to staff and students; and

3. maintaining appropriate insurance coverage which adequately protects against liability claims.