Personal Injuries - Physical Education -
Lack of Control

A brought an action against Leeds City Council ("LCC") for damages for personal injuries. A was one of approximately 25 girls, all aged 11, taking part in their first PE lesson in the school's sports hall. The girls were first given a talk on safety in the room next to the hall. LCC then claimed the girls were instructed to undertake a "warm up" activity. A, however, argued the activity went beyond that. The girls were told by their teacher, M, to touch all four walls of the sports hall and then return to her. There was a dispute as to whether the girls were told to run, but clearly that was the point of the exercise. A ran to two walls, but then collided with another girl. As a result of the collision, A fell onto her wrist breaking a bone.

Held, granting judgment for A in the sum of £4,000, that such a collision was entirely foreseeable in the circumstances. There was no order and no sequence to the exercise. It was up to each girl to select one wall after another. The girls were criss crossing on different paths of travel. It was necessarily an unstructured activity involving 25 young girls who hardly knew each other and who were in unfamiliar circumstances, never having used the hall before. Indeed, A had never used any hall as big as this before. It was a big new school and the girls were faced with a challenging task. The girls may have played tag or other similar exercises and games in a playground, but that was different to the particular exercise. The girls would all have run quickly as was the nature of children of that age. They were keen to please a new teacher and there was bound to be a competitive element to it. The girls were not specifically told that they should not run and clearly the purpose was to run.

It should have been obvious and foreseeable to anyone taking the lesson that there were risks and there was negligence as a result. It was very different to some of the things the girls would be asked to undertake, for example, team playing and practising in a known hall or pitch, or where the girls knew one another. The activity in question was not a team game, and in any event, contact sports for 11 year old girls required strict controls. Although safety instructions were given prior to the start of the exercise, they were normal instructions on all safety aspects of the premises and not specific to the particular activity, and as a result had no direct relevance. There was no allegation that A was failing to follow any of the instructions. The teacher was not in charge of the exercise. She was not in a position to stop a collision once everyone had set off.

This decision should not be taken as a case where anyone who is believed to have an injury following an accident is compensated. The game concerned was hazardous. Some games are physical and will cause injuries but the activity in the instant case, which was hazardous, was to have been a "warm up" exercise. Such an exercise need not be hazardous.