Court of Appeal in England hold Education Authority Liable for an Assault on Teacher by a Pupil
Vaile v. Havering London Borough Council, CA
The Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal against the dismissal by the Trial Judge of her claim against the Defendant, a local education authority, for damages for personal injury sustained during an assault by a pupil.
On 4th July 2003 a special needs child, X, at a special school for Children with Learning Difficulties, assaulted the Plaintiff teacher. X was aged 14 at the time and was quite tall and had gained puberty. He had joined the class in September 2002. X had previously attacked the Plaintiff (a few weeks before the subject incident) by biting her. On the day of the incident, at the end of the first lesson of the day, taken by the Plaintiff with the help of an assistant, the pupils were leaving their written work at a designated place in the classroom for collection and correction. X approached the Plaintiff’s desk and put his work down on her desk. She told him "No … can you put your work where the others have put theirs". X then turned on the Plaintiff, brought his hand down towards the desk and stabbed the Plaintiff in the back of the hand with the pencil he was holding. He lunged at her and hit her left ear. He then grabbed her by the neck and shook her head violently leaving red marks on the left side of her neck inflicted by the pencil. The assistant then intervened and took X out of the room.
The Plaintiff however suffered severe injuries as a result of her head being shaken including multiple detached retina and such severe psychological injury (agoraphobia and depression) that she has not been able to work again.
The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for negligence and failing to provide a proper system of work was dismissed in the first instance by the Trial Judge who held:
a) X was autistic or within the autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) and the Defendant failed to diagnose him;
(b) the Defendant failed to implement TEACCH (Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication Handicapped Children) or equivalent procedures for dealing with pupils with ASD and consequent learning difficulties; and
(c) the Defendant failed to implement properly the system of statementing the pupil’s special needs.
However, the judge rejected the claim on grounds that there was no evidence that the educational provision made for the pupil was inadequate or that the respondent had failed to provide a safe system of work and that such failure had caused her injury.
On appeal the Plaintiff accepted the judge’s primary findings of fact, but submitted that he had erred in failing to draw the conclusion that the local authority had not provided her with a safe system of work and that such failure had caused her injury.
The Court of Appeal agreed holding:
The proper conclusion from these findings of fact was that the local authority had failed in its duty to provide the Plaintiff with a safe system of work.
The court held that where a claimant proved both that a defendant was negligent and that loss ensued which was of a kind likely to have resulted from such negligence, that would ordinarily be enough to enable a court to infer that it was probably so caused, even if the claimant was unable to prove positively the precise mechanism. (Drake v Harbour [2008] EWCA Civ 25, 121 Con LR 18).
In the present circumstances therefore while it might be difficult for the Plaintiff to have shown precisely what the school could have done to avoid the incident, if she had been appropriately instructed in suitable techniques for dealing with ASD children, the probability was that, if proper care had been taken over the relevant period, she would not have suffered the injury she had.
The matter was remitted for an assessment of damages.