Pretoria - The Northern Cape Department of Education is liable for the damages caused to an 11-year-old boy injured after he and a friend played with acid which they found in a school toilet.
The child, only identified as T, went to the toilet at his school. After using the facility, he discovered there was no water to flush.
He came upon a container of liquid, described as acid or drain cleaner during the trial in the high court in that province. The child, who gave evidence, said he did not know it was acid or drain cleaner, but assumed it was water. He used this liquid in an attempt to flush the toilet.
The child testified that when he poured the liquid into the toilet, it started “boiling”. After seeing this, the child and a friend decided to experiment or play with it.
Ultimately, the child and his friend poured the drain cleaner into the urinal. The experimentation resulted in the drain cleaner splattering and burning the child. He suffered burns to his head, face and body and was taken to hospital by ambulance for treatment.
His parents are now claiming damages on behalf of their son, as well as for past and future medical expenses.
It turned out the school’s caretaker left the bottle with acid in the bathroom as he was due to unblock the drains. He went to lunch and was going to go about his job afterwards.
The parents are holding the department liable for the incident.
One of the defences raised by the department was that the child had contributed to the negligence. It was also said that the school could not be held liable for the fact that its caretaker left the substance in the bathroom because he had clear instructions to lock it at all times in a cupboard in the office. This was to ensure that the pupils – aged between 8 and 14 – did not get hold of it.
The department also raised a defence that the child’s friend, who was with him while both of them played with the acid, handled the substance in such a manner that it led to it splashing on the child.
While the department did not deny that the child suffered chemical burns, it said this was not due to its negligence, thus it did not need to compensate him for the harm suffered.
While the department claimed the child’s friend poured the acid which fell on the victim, the advocate acting for the parents said it did not matter who handled the substance at the time. It said the school should have in the first place ensured that it was never there.
Judge Lawrence Lever agreed and said in the circumstances of this case, the negligent and wrongful omission was allowing the children, both about 11 years old at the time, to come into possession of the acid.
It was also never disputed that the department was responsible for the relevant school. The evidence clearly established that the caretaker normally used drain clear to unblock the drains. The evidence clearly established that this was the practice at the time the incident occurred.
There was a standing instruction to lock the drain cleaner in an office in the administrative section of the school when the drain cleaner was not in use. This established that the caretaker was acting within the normal scope of his duties when using the drain cleaner, the judge said.
“From the admitted facts, it is clear that the first defendant (the department) had a legal duty to ensure that the minor learners in the school did not suffer harm by coming into contact with drain cleaner.
“Clearly, the legal convictions of the community would require that the drain cleaner be locked away out of the reach of the minor learners at the relevant, or any, school to prevent them from inflicting harm on themselves,” the judge said, in concluding that the department was liable for whatever damages the parents can prove that they suffered.
Pretoria News