Behaviour disorders and teacher negligence

The purpose of this paper is to examine the legal implications of the continuing rise in the number of school children diagnosed with behaviour disorders. Not only are teachers now subject to a dense grid of legal regulation, they are also increasingly vulnerable to actions in tort. It will be argued here that as more and more children are labelled ‘disordered’, the duty of care become more onerous, and hence harder for teachers to meet. As a consequence, teachers are more likely to face claims of negligence. It is concluded that while the schooling system needs to retain a healthy scepticism about each new pathologising disorder that seeks special status for its sufferers, it also needs to provide greater training and resources for teachers regarding disorder management. It is also concluded that recent changes to negligence law regarding the issue of ‘reasonable foreseeability’ within breach of duty of care, may not be as significant as might have been hoped by the teaching community. Indeed, the elevated standard of care required by the increasing numbers of disordered pupils, places teachers in an ever more difficult legal position.

Setting limits to teacher responsibility

The purpose of this article is to raise some concerns over ongoing changes to the nature and scope of the teaching profession. Teaching is a responsible profession, and teachers have always been charged with the job of turning out the next generation of citizens—educated, healthy in mind, and healthy in body. The question is: how far should this responsibility extend? Just what should schools be responsible for? This article proposes some limits to teacher responsibility.

Too great expectations?

Teachers have always been charged with the task of turning out the next generation of citizens—educated, healthy in mind, and healthy in body. The central question here is: how far should this responsibility extend? Just how much can we reasonably expect teachers to be responsible for? And just what should schools be responsible for? Obviously, teachers ought to be responsible for the fundamentals of learning, but should they be held accountable for what the children eat, or how they choose to behave, or for every single risk, direct or indirect, that could conceivably occur within the school grounds? These are precisely the kinds of expectation that have become part of educational life. Bit by bit, new forms of responsibility are being added to the site of the school and, more specifically, to the professional life of the teacher. The intention here is not necessarily to challenge any of these diverse changes, but rather to express concern about their cumulative effect on the ability of the school to do its primary job effectively.

Behaviour disorders and the negligent teacher

The purpose of this paper is to examine the legal implications of the continuing rise in the number of school children diagnosed with behaviour disorders. Not only are teachers now subject to a dense grid of legal regulation, they are also increasingly vulnerable to actions in tort. It will be argued here that as more and more children are labelled ‘disordered’, then the concomitant duty of care requirements for teachers becomes more onerous. As a consequence, teachers are less likely to be able to defend themselves against claims of negligence. It is concluded that while the schooling system needs to retain a healthy scepticism about each new pathologising disorder that seeks special status for its sufferers, it also needs to provide greater training and resources for teachers regarding disorder management. It is also concluded that recent changes to negligence law regarding the issue of ‘reasonable foreseeability’ within breach of duty of care, may not be as significant as might have been hoped by the teaching community. Indeed, the elevated standard of care, as required by increasing numbers of disordered pupils, place teachers in an ever more difficult legal position.

Duty of police and ambulance services : what happens when the plaintiff refuses treatment?

In a recent case the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered the duty of care owed by ambulance and police officers, issues concerning breach and causation and the practical effect of the exclusion of the plaintiff's evidence.

Traceability : retracing law and public policy on measurement standards

This presentation outlines key aspects of public policy in broad terms insofar as they relate to establishment, implementation and compliance with legal measurement standards. It refers in particular to traceability of a legal measurement unit from its source in a single international standard as a compliance issue. It comments on accreditation of legal measurement and liability concerned with errors in measurement.

Liability of principal contractor for independent subcontractor considered by the High Court

Case note of Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox (2009) 258 ALR 673 ----- In Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox (2009) 83 ALJR 1086 ; 258 ALR 673 the High Court considered the liability of a principal contractor for the negligence of independent subcontractors on a building site. In its decision, the court considered the nature and the scope of the duty owed by principals to independent contractors.

Recent cases on intoxication

Intoxication of a plaintiff raises many issues in a negligence action – duty of care, breach of duty, causation and the defence of contributory negligence. Recently intoxication has been examined by the Full Court of Tasmania in relation to duty and breach and by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in respect of causation and contributory negligence.

Foreseeability of pure economic loss and causation

In Bonny Glen Pty Ltd v Country Energy [2009] NSWCA 26 (24 February 2009) the New South Wales Court of Appeal held that the pure economic loss suffered by the appellant was recoverable. However, rather than arguments as to whether the appellant was vulnerable and a member of an ascertainable class, whether the respondent had knowledge of the risk to the appellant and was in a position of control and considerations as to indeterminate liability as in Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180, the arguments raised related to the foreseeability of the loss and causation.

Golf can be dangerous : be forewarned!

In Pollard v Trude [2008] QSC 119 (20 May 2008) the plaintiff claimed for personal injuries suffered when he was struck by a golf ball during the course of a tournament. The plaintiff was a member of a group of four, playing in a two-day tournament at Indooroopilly Golf Club. All four players had teed off at the second hole of the course and when the defendant took his second shot; his ball struck one of the trees bordering the fairway and deflected, hitting the plaintiff who was waiting to take his third stroke. As the ball was in flight, the defendant had called out "Watch out Errol", or words to that effect, to the plaintiff. The plaintiff suffered injury to his eye, leaving his vision impaired. The plaintiff sued in negligence, alleging that by failing to shout "fore" as is traditionally done in golf, the defendant had failed to warn the appellant and this was a breach of their duty. The claim in negligence was dismissed by the Queensland Supreme Court, holding that there had been no breach of the duty.

Australian torts laws

"Provides a comprehensive overview of the law of torts for law students. The legislative reform brought about by the IPP Committee recommendations are included and commented upon." -- Libraries Australia

High Court changes position on standard of care of learner drivers

Since the High Court decision of Cook v Cook (1986) 162 CLR 376, a person who voluntarily undertakes to instruct a learner driver of a motor vehicle is owed a lower standard of care than that owed to other road users. The standard of care was still expressed to be objective; however, it took into account the inexperience of the learner driver. Therefore, a person instructing a learner driver was owed a duty of care the standard being that of a reasonable learner driver. This ‘special relationship’ was said to exist because of the passenger’s knowledge of the driver’s inexperience and lack of skill. On 28 August 2008 the High Court handed down its decision in Imbree v McNeilly [2008] HCA 40, overruling Cook v Cook.

15 year old volens to BMX riding risks

The Queensland Court of Appeal recently heard a case that raised the defence of volenti on fit injuria. By a majority of 2:1 the court held in Leyden v Caboolture Shire Council [2007] QCA 134 (20 April 2007) that the defence of volenti was established and defeated the action in negligence for damages for personal injury. The facts of the case were quite simple. The plaintiff was 15 years old when he was injured at the Bluebell Park which was controlled and managed by the Caboolture Shire Council (the defendant). The park had a BMX track – built and maintained by the defendant. At trial it was held that although the defendant owed a duty of care to entrants, a duty was not owed to the plaintiff. The judge found that the plaintiff was different to other entrants who used facilities provided by a council in a public park. The plaintiff was not relying upon the defendant to provide a BMX track with jumps that were reasonably safe as the evidence was that the track was regularly altered by third parties and the plaintiff knew that. Therefore it was reasoned that the plaintiff was relying upon the ability of the third parties who modified the jump and his own ability to use it, not the ability of the defendant to provide a reasonably safe track (at [10]). The trial judge also held that if a duty was owed, the defence of volenti applied so as to defeat the claim for damages. This was based upon the evidence that the plaintiff knew of the modification of the jump by third parties and knew of the risk. It was held that the plaintiff ‘had the appropriate subjective appreciation of the risk’ (at [11]).

High Court decision on duty owed by licensee to patron

In a previous column of Queensland Lawyer,1 the case of Scott v CAL No 14 Pty Ltd (No 2) (2009) 256 ALR 512 was discussed. Special leave to appeal against the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was granted and on 10 November 2009 the High Court handed down its decision.

Health law : scope, sources and forces

• For the purposes of this chapter, “health law” encapsulates regulation of the medical and health professions, the administration of health services and the maintenance of public health to the extent that it is connected to the provision of health services. • There are diverging views as to whether health law can be regarded as a discrete “area of law”. • Health law draws on other areas of law such as tort law, criminal law and family law. It is also draws upon other disciplines, most notably medical and health ethics. • Social and economic forces have influenced the development and direction of health law, and these forces may become even more influential as the century develops. • The increasingly globalised world has implications for Australia’s health systems and raises questions and creates commitments in respect of the international community. • Technological developments, including in respect of treatment, diagnosis and information management, create ongoing challenges for health law. • Patient rights, human rights and consumerism are increasingly key drivers in the development of health law. • Health law is significant to contemporary Australian society because of the gravity of the topics that fall within its ambit, its social relevance to so many aspects of human existence and endeavour, the important role it plays in protecting the vulnerable, and the extent to which it engages with fundamental principles of justice.