{"id":16,"date":"2003-10-13T21:48:10","date_gmt":"2003-10-13T21:48:10","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2003-10-13T21:48:10","modified_gmt":"2003-10-13T21:48:10","slug":"negligence-duty-of-care-school-not-liable-when-boy-falls-off-swing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/?p=16","title":{"rendered":"<b>Negligence &#8211; duty of care &#8211; school not liable when boy falls off swing<\/b>"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><b>Simonds v Isle of Wight Council (2003)QBD<\/b><br \/>\nPlaying fields could not be made free of all hazards and because a school had diagnosed a hazard did not mean it was duty bound to take further steps to make access or use impossible.<br \/>\nThe issue in this case was &#8220;causation&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>A five year old was told him to return to his teachers after lunch with his mum during a sports day.  He went to play on swings and broke his arm. <br \/>\n<b>Held<\/b>: The school had been responsible for him all day and that the mother&#8217;s acts or omissions had not broken the chain of causation. However, this was simply an accident which had not disclosed any causative fault. The school had had a good plan for dealing with the swings; no one other than the claimant had played on them. Balancing the element of risk, it was not reasonable to impose a legal duty on a school to immobilise the swings any more than it would be to rope off a tree on the field. Playing fields could not be made free of all hazard. Furthermore, since the boy&#8217;s mother had not redelivered him back to the care of the school, there was no breach of any duty by the school.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Simonds v Isle of Wight Council (2003)QBD Playing fields could not be made free of all hazards and because a school had diagnosed a hazard did not mean it was duty bound to take further steps to make access or use impossible. The issue in this case was &#8220;causation&#8221;. A five year old was told [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}