In Stanberg v State of New South Wales, the NSW Court of Appeal overturned a decision of the District Court and found the State liable in negligence for injuries sustained by a primary school student during a long jump event. The case considers the scope of the non-delegable duty of care owed by schools, the causation standard under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), and the proper assessment of future economic and non-economic loss in child injury cases.
Factual Background
On 24 July 2019, Master Addison Stanberg, then a 10-year-old student at Neutral Bay Public School, was participating in a long jump trial on the school oval. During his fifth or sixth attempt, he landed heavily in the sandpit, reportedly hitting a hard surface within the pit before sliding forward and experiencing acute lower back pain. He was assisted by a supervising teacher and taken to the school nurse.
Over time, Addison continued to suffer from persistent lower back pain, which interfered with physical activity and daily life. In 2021, proceedings were commenced in the District Court by Addison (through his tutor and mother, Ms Elise Stanberg) against the State of New South Wales, alleging negligence on the part of the school in failing to adequately prepare and inspect the long jump pit.
The District Court dismissed the claim, finding that although the injury was unfortunate, the plaintiff had not established a breach of duty or causation, nor did the evidence support the claimed quantum of damages.
Issues on Appeal
The plaintiff appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal, raising the following grounds:
- Whether the State breached its non-delegable duty of care by failing to ensure that the long jump pit was adequately maintained and safe for use.
- Whether the breach was a necessary condition of the harm suffered (s 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002).
- Whether the primary judge erred in assessing damages, including future economic loss and general damages (non-economic loss).
- Whether the dismissal of the claim resulted in a miscarriage of justice due to a misapplication of legal principles or an error in the factual findings.
The Court of Appeal’s Findings
1. Breach of Duty
The Court found that the State, through the school, owed a non-delegable duty of care to ensure the safety of students engaged in physical activity on school grounds. This duty extended to ensuring that sports equipment and facilities — including the long jump sandpit — were reasonably safe.
Evidence showed that:
- The sandpit had not been replenished with new sand for some years.
- There were no written protocols or checklists used on the day of the long jump trials to assess the safety of the pit.
- Witness evidence from supervising teachers and students supported the conclusion that the pit may have been insufficiently raked or compacted, leaving a firm or uneven surface beneath the sand.
The Court held that the failure to conduct a proper inspection or ensure the sandpit was adequately filled and raked amounted to a breach of the duty of care.
2. Causation
Applying the test in s 5D(1) of the Civil Liability Act, the Court concluded that the inadequate preparation of the sandpit was a necessary condition of Addison’s injury. The harm was foreseeable, and it was reasonable to expect that students undertaking long jump events could sustain injuries if the landing area was not adequately prepared.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the injury was a result of poor technique or an unavoidable sporting accident.
3. Damages
The Court found that the primary judge erred in several respects in assessing damages.
- Non-Economic Loss: The trial judge had awarded 20% of a most extreme case under the Civil Liability Act 2002. The Court of Appeal considered this insufficient, given Addison’s age, the ongoing impact of the injury, and the likelihood of long-term restrictions on physical activity. It increased this to 30% of a most extreme case, resulting in a higher award.
- Future Economic Loss: The primary judge had rejected any award under this head due to uncertainty over the long-term impact. The Court of Appeal held that this was too conservative and did not give proper weight to medical evidence suggesting that Addison’s condition would likely affect his career choices and employability. It awarded a buffer amount of $250,000 for loss of earning capacity.
4. Costs and Orders
The Court set aside the orders of the District Court and substituted a judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $276,500, plus interest and costs. The appeal was allowed in full.
Legal Significance
This decision is significant for several reasons:
- Affirms the strict nature of a school’s non-delegable duty of care, which requires positive steps to prevent foreseeable risk, particularly in school sporting contexts.
- Highlights the approach to assessing future economic loss in child injury cases, where courts may apply a buffer even in the absence of precise vocational evidence, provided a real and significant risk of disadvantage is shown.
- Reinforces the appellate court’s role in reviewing discretionary assessments of damages, especially where factual or legal errors may have caused a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Practical Implications
Educational institutions and public authorities must ensure regular maintenance, inspection, and risk assessment procedures are in place for school sporting equipment and facilities. Where injuries occur due to preventable hazards — even in the context of physical activity — courts are willing to impose liability if adequate precautions were not taken.
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.