By Chevon Booysen 
1h ago
THE negligent conduct of Bredasdorp Primary School employees led to a Grade 1 pupil losing his eye after being punched by a “troubled” pupil while playing tag rugby.
This is according to a scathing Western Cape High Court judgement on the bullying of a 7-year-old during a tag rugby game just before school classes started.
The judge recently found the Western Cape Education Department to be vicariously liable for the child’s damages and ordered it to pay costs.
The school failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the incident from happening despite knowing the perpetrator showed troublesome behavioural patterns, serious enough to deem him a “high level risk to other pupils”.
The victim’s father had argued that the school had not practised its duty of care to the pupil –whose name has been withheld in court records – when he was injured and subsequently lost his left eye.
The incident took place before school started at 7am on September 18, 2012.
“On the fateful morning (the victim) participated in a game of tag rugby with other learners, on the school premises, before the school commenced. During the game, (the perpetrator) intentionally hit (the victim) with a raised knuckle twice on his left eye. (The victim) lost his left eye as a consequence of the assault,” court documents read.
The school’s deputy principal and head of discipline, at the time had argued that they did not have an official supervising the children.
The deputy principal had told the court, supervision was only conducted from 7.30am until 2pm, which was school operating hours.
The perpatrator had a history of troublesome behaviour and this was noted in the school’s records when on several occasions other learners reported incidents involving aggressive behaviour towards them by the pupil.
Just nine days before the victim had suffered the assault, the perpetrator was said to have been involved in another altercation with a peer and following the rugby tag incident. The boy threw a pair of scissors at another pupil.
The troubled pupil who had only been at the school for three months at the time of the incident, had left the school later that same year although he was not expelled and there were no consequences for him.
Judge Constance Nziweni said: “I find the assertion by the WCED, that at the critical time the school did not have any duty of care towards the learners because the school bell had not yet rung and the game which the learners were playing was not a school activity as contemplated in the (Schools) Act, astonishing.
“It is my firm view that the entire assertion is predicated upon a fallacy. This is so because, by implication, the WCED is saying that it is not the school’s concern if there are hazards on school grounds before the school bell rings.
“Surely, when a child is dropped off at school that is done on a reasonable belief that the child will be safe on the school premises. Because it is inherent that learners should not be exposed to harm on the school premises.”
Judge Nziweni said the troubled child was a high level risk to other pupils and had made the school an unsafe environment for other learners.
“The school employees failed to take reasonable steps aimed to prevent the attacks from recurring and eliminate the hostile environment for other learners. They failed to take reasonable precautions and to deal appropriately and sufficiently with the danger posed by the pupil to other learners.”
The judge said school authorities, after receiving initial complaints about the boy’s violent streak; simply threw caution to the wind and did not even do a follow up investigation with the child’s previous school.
“It is evident that the school seemed to have focused mainly on accommodating (the troubled pupil) at the expense of ensuring the safety of the other learners. The school did not even make an attempt to strike a balance between the interests of the (troubled pupil) and the safety of other learners. Instead the other learners were left totally vulnerable to persistent bullying,” said Judge Nziweni.
“Consequently, I find that the school employees were negligent in failing to take the requisite reasonable steps to avoid a foreseeable harm.”
Cape Times
Credit IOL