Should the Gauteng MEC for Education and the governing body be held responsible for the damages suffered by a parent, who was injured on school premises during a sporting event?
This was the question the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, faced after a woman fell into a hole at her daughters school and sustained injuries.
Madeleen Roets injured herself when she was accompanying her daughter to a sports event at the Du Preez van Wyk Primary School in Bronkhorstspruit. She stepped and fell into an unprotected and obscured hole. As a result she sustained an open fracture and severe laceration on her right ankle.
Roets instituted court action, arguing that schools had a legal duty to prevent physical harm being sustained by a parent; and held the school governing body and the education MEC responsible for her injuries.
Roets said in terms of the School Act, schools had to ensure that their premises were free of all sources of danger and possible harm to teachers, learners, parents or visitors. She said the education authorities had to prevent harm being sustained by the public visiting a school and had to ensure that the school surroundings were devoid of features that could sensibly be regarded as hazardous, dangerous or unsafe for teachers, learners, parents or visitors.
But the school’s governing body and the Gauteng MEC countered that Roets herself was to blame because she had failed to look where she was going. It was claimed that she was injured after jumping from the school pavilion.
They also pleaded that there was a disclaimer displayed at the entrance and other prominent places around the school's premises, stating that entry was at visitors’ own risk. It stated that "the school accepts no responsibility for any injury, loss or damage which you may suffer during your visit”.
Roets testified that on the day of the incident she and her two other children had accompanied her 13-year-old daughter to the school for sports practice. She was seated on the top row seats of the pavilion when her son wanted to go to the bathroom.
When her son proceeded to the bathroom, she stood up to follow him. Roets exited the pavilion from the back. While walking, her foot fell into a hole covered by grass. She then tried to lift her leg and realised it was broken, she told the court.
To regain her strength, Roets said she lifted her leg, placed it on a sports bag and sat for about two minutes. She then started shifting to her right side, propelling her body using her "buttocks" for about two to three metres to gain a view of the people.
The school’s gardener saw her and called the teachers to assist Roets. She was then taken to hospital.
In response to allegations by the school that she was the author of her own misfortune, Roets denied telling the teachers that she had jumped from the pavilion and chased after her son.
Roets testified that no disclaimer was displayed at the school entrance at the time of the incident. She said that it was only erected after the incident.
The school’s then deputy principal testified that the learners had alerted him of the injured parent behind the pavilion. He rushed to the scene and was the first educator to arrive at the incident scene.
He found Roets lying on the surface of a slope behind the pavilion, and she told him that she had moved from the back of the pavilion to attend to her child, lost balance, fell and twisted, and fractured her ankle.
The school did not lead any evidence regarding the existence or absence of the hole, the judge noted.
Acting Judge D Mahosi, said the defendants' evidence was riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities, while Roets was a good witness.
The judge pointed out that the defendants' counsel told Roets that they had witnesses who would testify that she admitted to jumping from the pavilion whilst chasing her son. However, none of the witnesses presented such evidence.
Of importance was that there were no eyewitnesses who saw Roets jumping from the pavilion. Roets' counsel correctly submitted that it was highly inconceivable that a woman of Roets' age would have taken such a risk.
In finding that the education authorities were liable for the damages Roets had suffered, the judge said the defendants knew or ought to have known about the existence of the hole because it was within the school premises.
“The reasonable defendants' servants would have foreseen the possibility of the hole causing harm and taken reasonable steps to cover it or to cordon it off, but they failed to do so. The defendants do not dispute that the grass obscured the hole and provided no evidence that they warned the visitors about it,” Judge Mahosi said.
While the court held the school and the MEC 100% liable for the damages, Roets must still prove the amount owed to her.
Pretoria News