Authored by Deniro Pillay and Amber Lawlor.
In March 2026, the High Court dismissed a claim by the parents of two matric learners who tragically drowned whilst attending a school camp. The court found that no prima facie case of negligence by the school’s staff had been established by the parents.
The matter concerned the tragic deaths of two learners who drowned in a swimming pool at a camp site. The provincial MEC for Education and Minister of Education were the defendants as the administrators of the public school that organised the camp. The parents claimed damages from the MEC and Minister based on the alleged negligence of the school’s staff who arranged and managed the camp.
The evidence at trial established that the learners had been expressly and repeatedly instructed not to swim at the camp site. No swimming formed part of the camp programme and the pool was out of bounds at all times. The learners were supervised throughout the day by the school’s staff and were required to be in their rooms by 22h00. A further check was conducted later that evening by the on-duty teacher. There was no accommodation for the teacher at the camp. All appeared in order with the learners when the teacher left the camp just after midnight to go to his accommodation. A camp manager, a security guard and some parents remained at the camp site with the learners.
Despite the measures in place, a group of learners later accessed the pool without permission. The precise circumstances of the drowning of the two learners remained unclear. There was no evidence as to how the two learners had drowned. The pool was not very deep and one of the learners was a good swimmer.
The parents argued that the school’s staff failed to properly supervise the learners and to take reasonable steps to prevent the risk of drowning.
The court decided that the evidence did not support a finding that the school’s staff ought reasonably to have foreseen the tragic outcome, nor that further reasonable steps could have been taken to prevent it. The court reiterated that the law does not require constant supervision in all circumstances, particularly where older learners are involved and clear rules have been communicated. The degree of supervision required depends on the risks to which the learners are exposed. The court recognised that the learners’ conduct in accessing the pool was deliberate and in direct contravention of instructions. To require continuous supervision or guarding of the pool throughout the night would impose an unreasonable standard of care.
This judgment serves as a reminder that, even in deeply tragic circumstances, liability in delictual claims depends on, among other things, the existence of a legally recognisable duty, the reasonable foreseeability of harm and a failure by the defendant to take reasonable steps to prevent it.