lWhen an accident occurs in a school yard, who should bear the financial consequences? This is the question raised by the following case. On September 29, 2016, a 5-year-old student, A. ‘another child, “He didn’t look where he was going”She falls backwards and her head hits the ground hard. She will be recognized as having a disability of more than 80%.
Interestingly, the school principal makes two accident reports: the first includes a diagram showing that the children collided head-on. The second does not allow us to understand what happened. Furthermore, the principal notes that five teachers were present, without specifying how many were in the playground.
A school teacher, Mr. Z., told the police that there were two of them watching one hundred and forty students. He admits not having seen anything, “from the corner of the courtyard where he was”with his colleague. In 2017, X. sued the company La Sauvegarde, which covered BY’s civil liability, as well as the French State, in the person of the rector of the academy. Indeed, the civil code (article 1242) states that “teachers” are responsible “the damage caused by their students (…) during the time they are under their supervision”.
Enhanced surveillance
The Alès court considers that the ” mistake “ of the child is at the origin of the accident and condemns La Sauvegarde to pay, alone, a provision of 100,000 euros. The insurance company appeals, maintaining that there was “lack of state supervision”characterized by the presence of only two teachers for every one hundred and forty students. What the rector questions, according to whom the surveillance was “sufficient and adapted to the situation”.
HE June 20, Court of Appeal of Nimes Please note that “the fact that this director has successively established two accident reports (…) Don’t stop asking.” She judges that even if there were only two teachers in the courtyard, they had a “reinforced surveillance obligation”because students with “Big age difference” were mixed, and that those of ULIS class must “benefit from specific support”. Now, since they were “together in a place called “corner”” and they couldn’t “visualize everything [la] court “They are to blame. The court concluded that the State must guarantee La Sauvegarde’s conviction, indicating that it would appeal to the Court of Cassation..
You have 17.67% left to read of this article. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
