Case name & citation: Geyer v Downs [1977] HCA 64; (1977) 138 CLR 91
- Court: High Court of Australia
- Judges: Stephen, Mason, Jacobs, Murphy and Aickin JJ.
- Judgment date: 9 December 1977
Geyer v Downs (1977) is a notable negligence case from the High Court of Australia. The case centers on the responsibility of a school headmaster for supervising students during a school morning session before classes begin.
Given below are the key points of the case.
The Incident (Geyer v Downs)
The incident occurred at Blacktown Primary School.
An 8-year-old student was struck on the head by a softball bat wielded by another student in the school playground at around 8:50 a.m., before classes had started. There was no teacher supervision at the time, and the playground was crowded with children.
Duty of Care
The case questions whether the headmaster owed a duty of care to the plaintiff (the injured student) before the official start of school hours (9:00 a.m.). The court concluded that the headmaster had a duty to supervise, given that the children were on school grounds, and the headmaster was aware that they regularly arrived early.
According to Murphy and Aickin JJ. (at p105) –
“The headmaster had created a factual situation in which he was under a duty to ensure that there was adequate supervision of the girls in the playground before 9.00 a.m. It is no answer to that claim to say that the ‘Daily Routine’ required supervision only after 9.00 a.m.”
Failure to Supervise
The headmaster had allowed children to enter the school grounds before 9:00 a.m., acknowledging the risks but not providing adequate supervision. His instructions to children to sit and read or talk quietly were not strictly enforced, and the children often played unsupervised.
Evidence of Breach
The court found that the headmaster’s failure to provide proper supervision or enforce his instructions contributed to the accident. The risk of injury was foreseeable, especially given the crowded and small playground.
As per Murphy and Aickin JJ. (at p103) –
“It is clear that the actual injury is of a kind which was foreseeable, as something which might result from the playing of softball in a small playground in which there were present between 100 and 150 unsupervised schoolgirls between the ages of eight and twelve.”
Court’s Decision in Geyer v Downs
The court concluded that the headmaster’s actions, or lack thereof, amounted to a breach of duty, and the plaintiff was entitled to damages. The appeal in favour of the headmaster was dismissed, and the original judgment of the jury in favour of the plaintiff was upheld.
In essence, the judgment clarifies that a duty of care exists even before the official school hours, and the failure to provide adequate supervision can result in liability for negligence.
References:
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM TORT LAW: