School Not Saddled with Responsibility: Cook v Riding for the Disabled Association (NSW) & Anor [2024] NSWSC 1332

Insurance

minutes reading time

DATE PUBLISHED: November 26, 2024

Overview

The Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled that a school owed no duty of care to a student injured while participating in an extra-curricular activity conducted by a third party.

key takeaways

A school’s non-delegable duty of care is owed only to a child under its care, typically while on school premises. This duty does not extend to activities independent of the school.
Acting as an intermediary for extra-curricular activities does not necessarily impose a duty of care on the school for those activities.
The presence of a teacher at an extra-curricular activity does not automatically create a duty of care, especially where the school has no authority to direct or control the activity.

the background facts

1
A 10 year old student (the Plaintiff) sustained a right femoral neck fracture after falling from a horse during an organised riding activity.
2
At the time of the incident, the Plaintiff had severe intellectual and physical disabilities. She attended Hunter River Community School (the School), which was operated by the Department of Education. and provided specialised education for children with complex disabilities.
3
The School received an annual offer from Riding for the Disabled Association (NSW) (RDA) for up to 12 students to attend one-hour riding sessions at RDA’s premises.
4
A teacher from the School coordinated participation each year, consulting with the School Executive to identify suitable students. Parents were invited to complete application forms provided by RDA, which determined the children’s eligibility.
5
The Plaintiff was accepted into the program. Along with The Plaintiff, two or three other participants, she was transported weekly from the School to RDA by a School-operated bus. Two teaching staff accompanied the children to the sessions and remained on-site during the activity.
6
On arrival at RDA, the children were handed over to RDA’s coach and volunteers. Teachers accompanied the group during the riding activity but resumed direct supervision only once the session concluded.
7
During one session, the Plaintiff fell from her horse and was injured.

The claim

The Plaintiff sued RDA, alleging that it breached its duty of care by failing to provide sufficient side walkers during the riding session.

The Plaintiff also claimed that the School owed her a non-delegable duty of care, which was breached due to RDA’s alleged negligence.

rDA liable

The Court held that RDA breached its duty of care owed to the Plaintiff by failing to ensure an adequate number of side walkers were present during the riding activity.

School owed no duty of care

Significantly, however, the Court found that the School did not owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff during the riding session.

The Court reasoned that RDA’s horse riding program was conducted independently of the School. The School’s role was limited to acting as an intermediary, facilitating the introduction of students to RDA.

The teachers accompanying the Plaintiff the children to RDA handed over their care to RDA’s staff during the riding session. While the teachers were present during the activity, they had no authority to direct or intervene in its conduct.

The Plaintiff relied on the principle that a school owes a non-delegable duty of care to ensure the safety of its students. The Court clarified, however, that this duty applies only while a child is in the school’s care, usually on school premises. Once the teachers relinquished care to RDA staff, the duty no longer applied to the Plaintiff.

Impact

This decision reinforces that a school’s non-delegable duty of care is not absolute.

Schools should carefully assess the facts and circumstances of claims arising from activities conducted by external providers, particularly regarding any contracts, policies, or procedures in place.