In the recent matter of R.M v MEC for the Department of Education, Limpopo (4242/2016) [2025] ZALMPPHC 28 (24 February 2025), a pupil was injured while practising netball on an unsafe field. Legal proceedings were instituted against the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) of Education in Limpopo for approximately R2 million in damages for the injuries sustained due to alleged negligence at her school.
The primary question, the High Court had to consider was whether the school’s failure to properly supervise the pupil and ensure the safety of the playing surface contributed to the pupil’s injury. The court considered key legal concepts such as negligence, duty of care, and causation in determining whether the school was at fault.
The incident occurred when a Grade 11 pupil tripped and fell while practising for a netball match, resulting in a fractured arm. She stated that the team was not under supervision during the practice, and she fell due to the uneven surface of the field, injuring her right arm. The netball surface was described as having red soil, patches of grass, and stones.
The pupil argued that the school failed to comply with regulations for safety measures , including ensuring adequate supervision, proper insurance, and maintaining a safe playing field. She also claimed the school did not take the necessary precautions to prevent the accident or provide adequate care afterwards.
In its defence, the Department argued, amongst other things, that netball is a contact sport and further stated that the school grounds were well-maintained, and that the pupil consented to the risks associated with the sport. It is important to note that Section 60(1)(a) of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 provides that:
“…the State is liable for any delictual or contractual damage or loss caused as a result of any act or omission in connection with any school activity conducted by a public school and for which such public school would have been liable but for the provisions of this section.”
Key issues in dispute include causation, whether the Department had a statutory duty to prevent the injury, whether the duty was breached, and whether the Department was negligent. While it was agreed that the pupil’s injury was not disputed, the hearing focused on whether the school failed in its duty of care, which resulted in the injury.
In this matter, the High Court used the test commonly referred to as the ‘but for’ test. This test is applied by conducting a hypothetical enquiry by asking, “But if the teacher was present at the netball grounds at the time of the incident/accident, would the pupil also have tripped and injured herself?” The focus should not be on whether the teacher could have physically prevented the student’s injury, but rather on whether the teacher’s presence would have ensured the field was properly cleaned and levelled beforehand.
The pupil proved that the Department (including the teacher and school) were responsible for the injury she had sustained and that therefore, the High Court held that the Department was liable for the pupil’s proven damages and ordered compensation.
This highlights the critical importance of schools ensuring the safety and well-being of their pupils, also during physical activities like sports. The court’s decision underscores the duty of care that schools owe to their pupils, particularly when it comes to maintaining safe environments and supervising activities to prevent foreseeable harm.
Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken on the basis of this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).
