A trip to the school toilets left an 11-year-old boy with chemical burns to his head, face and body — and led to a damages claim that will have to be paid by the Northern Cape MEC for education.
The plight of the pupil, named in court papers as T, adds a new twist to the dangers that some toilets pose for children. Only, here the problem was caused by drain-cleaning liquid that had been left unattended.
T said that in October 2015 he left the classroom to use the toilet. There was no water to flush the toilet afterwards, but he found a container of “liquid”.
He didn’t know that it was acid or drain cleaner, but assumed it was water. He had never come across acid until then and didn’t know how to handle it. On the assumption that it would help flush the toilet, he poured the liquid from the container into the toilet bowl.
When he did this, the water started “boiling”. Intrigued, he experimented further, and poured the drain cleaner into the urinal.
It splattered and burnt the child on his head, face and body, and he was taken by ambulance for treatment.
When his father later brought a claim against the education authorities in the Kimberley high court, the two sides agreed that they would first establish whether the child had a claim. If the court agreed that he did, the question of the damages to be paid would be left for a subsequent hearing.
The legal team appearing for the department of education argued that the child was to blame for the incident, as T was injured “by his own hand”. As he was the author of his own misfortune, the department could not be held responsible for what had happened.
Counsel told judge Lawrence Lever that, according to previous decisions, even a child “under puberty” could be found to have been negligent if he or she had the intelligence to appreciate a particular danger, knew how to avoid the danger and was mature enough to control impulsive acts.
Lever held, however, that these considerations would involve “factual inquiries” supported by evidence. The education department’s legal team, he said, had failed to show that evidence.
The school effectively conceded that it was responsible for creating a situation in which an employee had allowed the child to get access to the acid
“There was no probing in cross examination as to whether the victim understood the dangers of handling acid; the precautions to be observed when dealing with acid; or [whether he] had the maturity and ability to avoid irrational or impulsive acts” in handling the substance.
There was also the suggestion, by counsel for the department, that another pupil had handled the acid and caused T’s burns. But T’s lawyer responded that as the school had effectively conceded that it was responsible for creating a situation in which an employee had made it possible for the child to get access to the acid, it made no difference whether it was T or another child who poured the drain cleaner.
Authorities responsible
The education department’s version was that an employee, responsible for unblocking drains, had not completed the task when it came time for lunch and, instead of locking the chemical in the administration section of the school as he should have done, had left it in the toilet area, “behind bars” and with three wheelbarrows in front of the bars to secure it.
However, Lever dismissed this defence, as T and a friend who was with him both denied seeing any wheelbarrows. With negligence clearly established, the authorities were found to be responsible for T’s injuries.
In the second part of the case, yet to be heard, the authorities will have to pay whatever damages are awarded to T.
This might seem to be a rare case, with an unusual set of facts, but it shows — once again — that when it comes to the use of school toilets by young children, the authorities fail to show the care that parents are entitled to expect.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.