Sydney's Top Student Scores Big Settlement After Suing School for Sports Injury

• A teenage boy secures a $275,000 settlement from his elementary school.
• FURTHER READING: Parents who constantly complain might face new penalties.

A student at an elite Sydney A private school has been awarded a substantial settlement from its public primary school following life-altering injuries sustained during a Year 6 sports festival.

On Friday, the now 17-year-old, a current student at Shore, secured a $275,000 judgment against Neutral Bay Primary School and, vicariously, the state of NSW .

The legal case revolved around a long jump event held at the public school in 2019. At that time, an 11-year-old boy landed on a solid surface within the sand pit and consequently suffered a back injury.

The unidentified student disclosed that he experienced a severe spinal injury while participating in the long jump, which led to persistent back issues and disabilities.

Initially, he filed the lawsuit with the NSW District Court, which rejected his claim in October, determining that the school had implemented sufficient measures to safeguard the students.

In that instance, Judge Robert Newlinds SC found the teachers supervising the event reasonably believed the sandpit was safe and had been sufficiently sanded.

Judge Newlinds determined that although schools have an obligation to implement sensible measures for ensuring student safety at sports activities, they aren’t required to guarantee complete risk elimination.

'There will always be unfortunate consequences and injuries suffered by children at school or at play, even when there has been every reasonably precaution taken to prevent such actions,' he said.

On appeal, acting Justice John Griffiths, with whom two other judges agreed, disagreed, claiming the risk of harm was foreseeable and easily avoidable.

He held the school failed to ensure there was adequate sand to soften the area where the student landed and the two teachers failed to give adequate supervision.

The main judge used an image showing a tape measure next to the sandbox to conclude that there were at least 20 cm of sand mixed with other cushioning materials.

Justice Griffith disagreed with the inference, claiming the tape measure appeared to be kinked in the image and that the lower court relied too strongly on the single image.

"I am contentedly assured that the school breached its duty by not taking adequate measures to reduce the risk of injury during long jumps," stated Justice Griffiths.

There was a neglect of responsibility due to the school's inability to implement adequate measures that could have avoided the student's injuries.

'Those safety measures were not burdensome.'

When assessing compensation, Judge Griffiths acknowledged the testimony of the student’s physician, who asserted that the harm would probably impact his prospects going forward.

The medical proof indicated that the child experienced considerable harm to a spinal disc, leading to irreversible structural damage to his spine.

Both courts acknowledged that the injury impacted his ability to fully enjoy life up until then and would continue to affect him in the future.

In court, the student mentioned that he was considering possibly pursuing a career in information technology or finance like his mother once he finished school. He also noted that his back pain could potentially make sitting for extended periods quite challenging.

He brought up the idea of enlisting in the military post-graduation, yet he mentioned that his time in high school cadets was compromised due to his injuries.

Judge Griffiths opted to grant a '$250,000 buffer' for potential future financial losses and added another $25,000 for intangible damages representing emotional distress.

He dismissed the school's assertion that the injury would have occurred irrespective of how forcefully or hard he landed in the pit, as it was caused by increased intra-abdominal pressure.

"It is possible that [the student] might have still sustained the same injuries even if there had been sufficient sand in the landing zone," he stated.

'However, it is There is no "response to the query about demonstrating that something is more likely than not, suggesting that an alternative option remains available."

In the end, the appellate court judges determined that the school had not taken adequate measures to shield the student from a danger that could realistically have been anticipated and thus prevented.

The committee determined that although there are clear risks associated with school sports, these activities are integral parts of the curriculum in numerous primary schools. The local community appropriately acknowledges that such endeavors can be advantageous for young children provided they are adequately monitored.

I am confidently contented that the school failed to adequately ensure safety measures were in place to reduce the risk of harm during long jump activities.

The New South Wales Department of Education has been reached out to for comments.

Read more