(Photo: Friends of Luhlaza II / Facebook)
The Western Cape High Court found that education authorities were not negligent in the death of two matric students who drowned more than 10 years ago during a school camp in Strandfontein.
Acting judge Susan van Zyl dismissed the claim of the learners’ parents after finding that they could not provide sufficient evidence of negligence.
The tragedy occurred on the night of 13 October 2014 when the two learners, respectively 17 and 18 years old, drowned during a matric study camp at a campsite. The two learners’ names are not mentioned in the judgment for privacy reasons.
The parents sued the Western Cape Department of Education and the Minister of Education, arguing that the school and its staff failed to properly supervise and prevent the risk of drowning. Cape Times reported at the time that the parents had sued the department for R4 million in damages.
However, the court found that the evidence did not support these allegations and that the events took place against the background of clear rules and appropriate supervision.
A co-learner, mr. Saki, testified that he and his classmates attended the camp without knowing beforehand that there was a swimming pool on site. However, upon their arrival, they were expressly and repeatedly told that swimming was prohibited. Learners had to be in bed by 22:00, as a full academic program was followed. No time was allowed for leisure such as swimming.
According to Saki, later that evening they heard noises outside which indicated that other learners were busy entertaining themselves. He and others went to investigate and found that some were already in the pool. They joined them, although no teachers were present at that stage. When they returned to their rooms later, when it got too cold, they discovered that two learners were missing. A search was launched and parents who were on site helping with food preparation were awakened to assist.
Saki further testified that some learners may have waited for the teachers to leave before going swimming. He was also of the opinion that the incident could possibly have been prevented if teachers had stayed on site.
However, the court also took note of the testimony of Mr. Jobela, a teacher who was involved in the camp. He testified that the learners were under supervision from early in the day and that the school had already used the same camping ground in previous years without any incident. The camp was part of the learners’ preparation for the matric final exam and according to him had produced good results in the past.
Jobela confirmed that he expressly warned the learners during dinner and again later that evening not to swim. He made control rounds at 22:00 and again around 23:30 and testified that everything was calm and that many learners were already asleep. He left the site around 00:20 after making sure everything was in order.
According to his testimony, there was still a camp manager, a security guard and parents present on the site. He informed the camp manager that learners were not to move around at night and that the security guard was to ensure that the rules were observed. However, he could not confirm what happened after his departure and only learned the next morning that two learners were missing.
The court also heard that the pool was fenced off, although it is not clear if the gate was locked. The learners who drowned were described as well-mannered and disciplined youngsters, and one of them could swim well.
Van Zyl emphasized in her judgment that the exact circumstances of the drowning remain unknown and that there is no direct evidence as to how the incident took place. For example, it is unclear whether the learners slipped, were pushed under the water or simply could not keep themselves above water.
She emphasized that negligence cannot be inferred simply from the fact that a tragedy occurred. The question is whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would foresee the risk and take further steps to prevent it.
In this case, the court found that the school had already taken reasonable precautions and that the learners’ actions, to break the rules and go swimming, was an independent factor.
“On careful and sober consideration … the evidence does not go far enough to justify a finding of negligence,” said Van Zyl.
The court further found that the school could not reasonably be expected to supervise the pool at all times, even through the night.
At the same time, Van Zyl expressed her sympathy for the parents and acknowledged the extent of their loss. “This court has great sympathy for the plaintiffs – as a parent, one cannot understand their pain,” she said.
The court dismissed the claim and ruled that each party should bear its own legal costs.
