Publications

Addison, an 11 year old Year 6 student at a public school in Sydney, was participating in a long jump trial at an athletics carnival. On landing, he said that he felt his feet strike a hard surface beneath the sand. He slid forward, fell backwards and immediately experienced lower back pain. The injury resulted in ongoing symptoms that continued beyond the date of the incident.

Addison sued the Education Department, which accepted that it would be vicariously liable for any negligence on the part of the school or its teachers. Addison argued that the school had failed to ensure that there was an adequate depth of sand in the landing area and the pit was not raked enough during the activity.

The District Court decision

At first instance, the District Court dismissed the claim. The trial judge found that the school had taken reasonable precautions and that sufficient sand was present in the pit. Evidence showed that sand had been supplied to the school at the beginning of the athletics season and that the pit was raked periodically during the event.

The judge emphasised that schools are not automatically liable simply because a student is injured. Sporting and recreational activities inevitably involve some risk and the law does not require schools to eliminate every possible danger.

The NSW Court of Appeal takes a different view

Addison appealed and the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed his appeal, finding that the primary judge had erred in concluding that adequate precautions had been taken.

The Court carefully examined the evidence relating to the condition of the sand pit. It found that insufficient weight had been given to the fact that the sand was only raked intermittently after several students had jumped rather than after each jump. The evidence also did not support certain findings regarding the protective surface allegedly beneath the sand. Importantly, the Court concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, there was an inadequate depth of sand where Addison landed.

The Court held that the school had failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the foreseeable risk of injury. The additional step of ensuring adequate sand depth and more frequent raking of the landing area was relatively simple and practical. In those circumstances, the failure to take those precautions was negligent.

Why the decision matters

Importantly, the decision does not create a new legal obligation for schools.

Australian courts have long recognised that schools owe students a duty of care because children are particularly vulnerable and are entrusted to the school’s supervision.  The law also recognises that schools cannot eliminate every risk associated with education, sport and recreation but they are expected to take reasonable precautions in response to risks that can be anticipated.

The decision demonstrates how the courts assess, in practical terms, whether a school’s duty has been met.  Where a simple precaution can materially reduce the risk of injury, a school is normally expected to take that step. The fact that an activity is common or has a social and educational benefit does not remove the obligation to ensure that basic safety measures are implemented.

The Court was not concerned with sophisticated risk management systems or expensive safety upgrades.  Instead, it examined whether routine maintenance practices had been carried out consistently and effectively.

Practical lessons for schools

The decision highlights several practical lessons for schools:

• Schools should regularly inspect sporting facilities and equipment before and during use.
• Staff should follow clear and consistent procedures when supervising sporting activities.
• Where maintenance measures are necessary to ensure safety, schools should be able to demonstrate that those measures were actually carried out. Documentation and record-keeping may become significant if an incident later results in litigation.

Importantly, the case demonstrates that relatively minor maintenance issues can become highly significant when assessing whether a school has taken reasonable steps to keep its students safe.

Conclusion

Stanberg v State of New South Wales confirms that schools are not strictly liable for every injury suffered by a student. The case also highlights the courts’ expectation that schools will take practical and reasonable steps to reduce foreseeable and probable risks. Where a straightforward measure is capable of materially reducing or preventing harm, a school is generally expected to implement it.

For schools and educational authorities, the decision is a timely reminder that effective risk management often depends not on complex policies, but on the consistent application of basic safety practices.

While schools cannot, and should not, remove every risk from student life, the law expects practical and proportionate steps to be taken to reduce foreseeable harm.

In that sense it is less about the long jump pit and more about the everyday decisions schools make to keep students safe while providing rich educational experiences.

Contact Stephanie McLuckie if you have questions about meeting your school’s duty of care.

This article was published on 23 October 2026 by Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers and is based on the relevant state of the law (legislation, regulations and case law) at that date for the jurisdiction in which it is published. Please note this article does not constitute legal advice. If you ever need legal advice or want to discuss a legal problem, please contact us to see if we can help. You can reach us on 1800 059 278 or via the Contact us page on our website.