Page 43 - Mini-Module 9

21
By contrast, in the earlier case of Wright v Cheshire County Council
(1952) the student who suffered injuries was unable to claim damages
for injuries suffered when he fell doing gymnastics, because the judge

ruled that the teacher was not negligent by leaving other boys who had
been properly trained to use a method to provide support in the usual
manner. The Judge said:

“There may well be some risk in everything one does or in every step
one takes, but in ordinary everyday affairs the test of what is

reasonable care may well be answered by experience from which arises
a practice adopted generally, and followed successfully over the years
so far as the evidence in this case goes.”

Danger of another kind exists in laboratories. A fifteen year old boy

was engaged in a chemistry lesson consisting of 28 students. Each was
directed to take apiece of phosphorous for use in an experiment. The
boy took one piece and placed it in his pocket, and went for another

piece for his experiment. The piece in his pocket caught alight and the
boy suffered burns. A claim for damages was not successful because
the judge held that the boy had been warned beforehand of the
dangers of phosphorous and he was experienced enough in chemistry

to appreciate the dangers. This would clearly be different if a younger
student with less experience in chemistry was involved, particularly if
he had not been warned beforehand of the dangers of the chemical.

43