A student awarded €50,000 for serious injuries sustained when he was hit in the eye by a chocolate bar thrown in horseplay during an unsupervised school lunch break may keep the money as a result of a 2-1 majority decision of the Supreme Court yesterday.
Co Wexford Vocational Education Committee lost its appeal against the High Court award to Kenneth Murphy who on the date of the incident, May 7th, 1998, was aged 16 and a fifth-year pupil at the VEC's school in Enniscorthy. The appeal, confined to the issue of liability, was dismissed by two of the three Supreme Court judges.
In his judgment, with which Ms Justice McGuinness agreed, Mr Justice McCracken said Mr Murphy, of Toberona, Davidstown, was in what was known as the recourse area, where fifth- and sixth-year students could go during the lunch period, on the date in question.
There were about 50 students there and one of them had produced a bag of chocolate bars, which he offered to share.
Apparently the bag burst and a good deal of horseplay ensued during which a number of pupils, put by the plaintiff as about nine, had started throwing bars around the room at each other.
One of the bars struck Kenneth Murphy in the eye, causing him serious injuries.
Mr Justice McCracken said there had been no supervision of any kind on that day in the area where the incident took place. The trial judge found the school had been negligent and awarded €50,000 to Mr Murphy, now aged 22. The VEC pleaded contributory negligence by the plaintiff.
The judge said that, in evidence, Mr Murphy had disputed he had indulged in excessive horseplay.
He said he did not throw a chocolate bar at anybody, although he threw one onto the ground, and moved into the window sill to try to avoid the bars.
At the end of Mr Murphy's evidence, counsel for the VEC had applied for a direction and stated he was not going into evidence.
As a result, the only evidence the trial judge heard was that of Mr Murphy and another pupil.
Mr Justice McCracken said that, quite clearly, school authorities were not insurers of the pupils under their supervision. However, they did owe a duty to those pupils to take reasonable care that they did not suffer injury. To do this, some degree of supervision was clearly required.
The extent of such supervision would depend on a number of factors, for example the age of the pupils involved, the location of the places where they congregated, the number of pupils which may be present at any one time, and the general propensity of pupils at the particular school to act dangerously.