By Ben Casey. Ben Casey is a 2nd year Law (BCL) with Politics student in University College Dublin. Alongside his studies Ben volunteers with the UCD Student Legal Service Free Legal Advice Clinic and works as the Careers and Academics Officer for the UCD Law Society. Ben was selected as one of the winners of UCD Law Review’s annual case note competition for his piece on O’Brien v. Byrne and Anor, a case concerning the liability of physical education teachers regarding personal injuries sustained by students under their duty of care.
Introduction
In O’Brien v. Byrne and Anor[1] the High Court held the plaintiff was not able to make a civil claim in negligence for an injury suffered during a PE class when he was 15. In this case the court considered the issues of the discharge of the PE teachers’ duty of care, the element of a foreseeable risk and expert evidence that was submitted on both sides.
Facts
In 2015, the plaintiff was a student in secondary school and a participant in a PE class partaking in a relay race when it was claimed that a classmate bumped him during the race causing the plaintiff’s glasses to fall off. The plaintiff claimed he hit the wall, went unconscious and awoke to find the teacher implementing the concussion protocol. The plaintiff required two surgeries to fix a fracture in his elbow.
The defendant submitted evidence that the plaintiff tripped over himself, stumbled several metres, fell, and made contact with the wall. The defendant submitted that the teacher was satisfied that the plaintiff had no complaints of injury and filled out the accident report form several days later when he became aware of the plaintiff’s injury.
The plaintiff and the defendant had fundamentally different accounts, with the court tasked with deciding which version it prefered.
Decision of the Court
The expert witnesses in the case agreed that the teacher’s account of the relay was safe and appropriate while the plaintiff’s account of the race included negligence and foreseeable risk.[2] Expert evidence was given by engineers and PE experts, who all agreed on the safety and appropriateness of the arrangement that the teacher put in place, as submitted by the defendant. [3]
The court preferred the defendant’s version of events. The expert evidence provided the layout of the hall, and it is accepted that the layout would provide for optimum use of time and space for a PE class, and the court could not identify any reason, aside from sheer incompetence, why a PE teacher would set up a route involving a real and foreseeable risk of injury.[4] The plaintiff’s claim of breach of duty revolved around the defendant failing to expressly instruct him not to run into the wall. However, the defendant did explain the route and where the plaintiff was to turn and rejoin the line, which amounted to a successful discharge of duty. [5]
Reaching the following conclusion in favour of the defendant, Bolger J stated, “I am satisfied that plaintiff has not established negligence or any actionable lack of care by the defendant in the organisation of the PE class. I, therefore, dismiss his claim.”[6]
Reasoning
Based on the expert evidence provided and the presumption that the PE teacher was competent, the court accepted the defendant’s version of events over the plaintiff’s.
Had the layout of the route been that as provided by the plaintiff then this result could have been different, however it was accepted by the court that the defendant’s recollection of events was more realistic.[7]
Bolger J. considered the following cases in reaching her decision.
- “It is acknowledgement that injuries do occur when one is participating in a sporting activity,” per Barr J. in Dunne v. St Paul’s Secondary School.[8]
- “Risk is inherent in physical activity, even one that is suitably and reasonably safe,” per Feeney J in Carolan v. St Ciaran’s National School.[9]
- “Where an activity is adapted, this must be done so that it can be engaged in safely, including the requirement to set out markers at a safe distance from walls or other obstructions,” per Budd J in Kane v. Kennedy.[10]
Analysis of decision
Bolger J. correctly applied the judgements issued in the cases of Dunne v. St Paul’s Secondary School, Carolan v. St Ciaran’s National School and Kane v. Kennedy.
The issue in this case was whether the PE teacher organised the class safely to discharge his duty of care owed to the student and that he did not act in a manner that was negligent.
Through analysis of these cases, Bolger J. was correct in determining that the defendant had avoided any foreseeable risk and discharged his duty of care to the plaintiff and, as such, the court was correct in ruling in favour of the defendant.
Significance of the case
From the application of the judgment in this case, we can surmise that PE teachers will safely discharge their liability for injury where they take appropriate steps to ensure the environment is safe.
The verdict of this case could have implications for other areas of law. The principle to consider is that if a person in a position of responsibility discharges their duty, where there is an unavoidable risk of injury, they will not be liable. This creates an interesting situation with the creation of a danger, as can be seen in Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council it was established that the creation of an additional risk can impose liability[11]and it could be argued that participation in the PE class is an unnecessary creation of danger. While this is an English case with a very different set of facts, it is noteworthy that there is a distinction in the formation of principles.
Conclusion
This case establishes that if a teacher discharges their duty of care by sufficiently ensuring that a sporting activity is as safe as possible and that there is no foreseeable risk of danger then they will not be liable for any intervening element that may occur. Because this case is heavily reliant on the unique facts of the situation, the persuasiveness for similar cases in the future will likely be based on the grounds that risk is inherent in physical activity.[12]
The consequences of this judgment include creating protections for teachers from unforeseeable consequences such as an accident where the fault originated with the student rather than an act or an omission of a teacher to prepare responsibly.
[1] O’Brien v. Byrne and Anor [2023] IEHC 367.
[2] ibid.
[3] ibid.
[4] ibid.
[5] ibid.
[6] O’Brien (n 1).
[7] ibid.
[8] Dunne v St. Paul’s Secondary School [2019] IEHC 22.
[9] Carolan v. St Ciaran’s National School [2006] IEHC 416.
[10] Kane v Kennedy [1999] IEHC 142.
[11] Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] 3 WLR 331.
[12] Carolan (n 9).
UCD Law Review 