By: Meisha Tjiong, William Yeo and Hannah Turl

At a glance

On 4 and 17 October 2024, the District Court of NSW delivered its decisions in Stanberg v State of New South Wales [2024] NSW DC 462, and entered a judgment for the State with the Plaintiff to pay the State’s party/party costs and partial indemnity costs.

The decision of Newlinds J confirms the standard that plaintiffs must meet to prove a breach of duty of care for a school. It has been made clear that in circumstances where a plaintiff is injured, a school is not strictly liable for these injuries. The injury in itself does not prove a failure by the school to take reasonable precautions and it is important to consider the social utility of primary school students being able to participate in competitive or non-competitive sport and games.

Stanberg v State of New South Wales [2024] NSW DC 462

The claim

The Plaintiff (by his tutor) commenced proceedings against the State of NSW (the State), alleging that whilst he was a student at Neutral Bay Public School (the School), he sustained injuries as a result of attending long jump training on 24 July 2019 (Incident). It was alleged that:

  • on landing after the jump in the sand pit, the Plaintiff’s feet penetrated through the sand in the landing pit and slid forward on the solid ground on the floor of the pit,
  • the plaintiff’s feet in sliding forward exposed the ground on the bottom of the pit and/or reduced the sand cover causing the plaintiff to land heavily on the bottom of the pit on his bottom and back, and
  • the impact caused injury to the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s case was that the State breached its duty of care to him for failing to ensure there was sufficient sand in the landing area, either per se or because the sand was not raked after each jump.

WK acted on behalf of the State who denied any breach of duty of care and led evidence regarding the supply of sand and supervision of the Incident.

The decision

Newlinds J found that there was no breach of duty, finding in favour of the State and ordering the plaintiff to pay the State’s costs. His Honour considered that the Plaintiff had not proven that that the State failed to take such precautions that a reasonable person in the teachers’ position would have taken. In that regard, his Honour:

  • found there was adequate sand in the pit.
  • considered the medical evidence and found the risk of the Plaintiff’s injury as a result of the Incident was highly unlikely,
  • was satisfied that the School took reasonable precautions against the risk. In particular the teachers, being conscious of a need for adequate sand being in the pit, had considered and formed a view that the level was adequate,
  • considered the standards of supervision expected by the Plaintiff equated to international standards and such a standard would ultimately have the effect of reducing the likelihood of schools providing athletics opportunities form children. This would have a significant diminution in the social utility of ensuring that school children engage in competitive or non-competitive sport and games, and
  • considered the Incident was an unfortunate accident that caused the Plaintiff to be significantly injured, notwithstanding that all reasonable precautions to prevent that occurring had been taken.

The implications

The District Court’s decision confirms the necessary threshold that must be satisfied to establish any breach of duty of care by a school, especially where there is social utility to ensure that school children engage in sport and games.

The judgment reinforces the principle outlined in Phillis v Daly1 that just because a risk was foreseeable, preventable, and in fact eventuated, does not mean there was any negligence. Furthermore, a school is not strictly liable for injuries sustained by pupils when they under the supervision of their teachers.

The Plaintiff has filed a notice of intention to appeal, so watch this space.

Our team are here to provide tailored advice on the issues considered in this article. Contact our authors to discuss how we can support you.

1 (1988) 15 NSWLR 65 at [74].