Authored By: Ivry Choo Jing Ying
Multimedia University Melaka Campus
Abstract
This article explores the scope of a teacher’s duty of care within the teacher–student relationship, focusing on negligence in the context of school activities. It analyses thecircumstances under which permitting a student to participate in certain activities mayamount to a breach of duty. The discussion applies the “reasonable person” standardas adapted to the role of a prudent and competent teacher, considering factors suchas the student’s age, skill development, availability of safe equipment, and adequacyof supervision. It emphasises that a teacher’s negligence arises when there is a failure toact with the care expected of a prudent and competent educator, resulting in harmthat was reasonably foreseeable and preventable through proper supervision andprecaution. The article concludes that adherence to these professional standards protects both student welfare and teachers from legal exposure.
Introduction
According to a news report by Malay Mail1 on 7 January 2025, in the Sessions Court, 60-year-old nursery school teacher S. Esther Christina faced a second charge of negligence in connection with the drowning of a child in April 2023. On 17 April 2023, at around 10:07 a.m., four-year-old V. Thanes Nair, a kindergarten student at Tadika Kinder Labz Sdn Bhd in Bandar Baru Sri Klebang, Ipoh, fell into a swimmingpool after being left unsupervised by his caretakers. He was rushed to Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, where he remained under treatment for six days before succumbingto his injuries on 23 April 2023. In the aftermath, public opinion strongly emphasizedthat teachers have a fundamental duty to safeguard students under their care. Manystressed that ensuring student safety should be a teacher’s foremost priority duringschool hours. This reflects the principle of in loco parentis, under which teachers assume the parental duty of care toward their students. According to news articletitled “In loco parentis ― Hafiz Hassan”
Latin for “in the place of a parent”; “instead of a parent”. Black’s LawDictionarydescribes in loco parentis as the legal position of a person who is deemed to assumethe authority, obligations, and care of a parent. Under this principle, teachers assumethe role of guardians while students are in school, bearing full responsibility to protect their well-being despite the absence of any blood relationship. In simpler terms, whenstudents are in school, teachers are considered to be in the place of parents, responsible for taking good care of every student. As such, this case provides a timelyopportunity to examine the scope and limits of a teacher’s duty of care.
Research Methodology
Case Studies
The case study research method is a qualitative strategy focused on an in-depthanalysis and examination of specific legal cases or groups of cases, scrutinizing real- world situations or events within their natural context to gain a comprehensiveunderstanding of the legal issues, procedures, and outcomes involved. Its primaryaimis to grasp the intricacies of the legal system, the dynamics among legal actors, theimplementation of laws, and the consequences of legal actions. This method offers several advantages, including the ability to create rich, detailed descriptions that capture the complexities and subtleties of legal cases, thereby enhancingthecredibility of research findings. It is also highly flexible, allowing data collection fromdiverse sources such as court records, legal documents, interviews, observations, andarchival materials, resulting in a more robust analysis. Furthermore, the case studymethod provides valuable guidance when direction is unclear, as judicial principles and statements are authoritative and cannot be falsified. It also facilitates clear andultimately deepens our understanding of the general rules and principles of dutyof care and their application in the teacher-student relationship.
Analytical Research:
Analytical legal research is a systematic approach that critically examines statutes, case law, regulations, and scholarly literature to interpret legal principles anddoctrines. This method enables a comprehensive evaluation of complex legal issues, uncovering their underlying reasoning, ambiguities, and practical implications. It alsobenefits from an interdisciplinary dimension, drawing insights fromfields suchas philosophy, sociology, and political science to provide a richer and more nuancedunderstanding of the law. In the context of this assignment, applying analytical research allows us to examine the legal framework governing the duty of care andtheconcept of negligence, particularly as it arises in cases involving teacher misconduct or omission. By engaging with both legal texts and current societal developments, wecan form arguments that are not only grounded in legal authority but also responsiveto the realities and challenges faced in Malaysia today. This approach ensures that our discussion of teacher negligence is both theoretically sound and socially relevant.
Duty of care
In negligence law, the existence of a duty of care must be determined, and it is the most crucial step before liability can be established. Courts have developedguiding principles and tests through landmark cases to define the scope of this duty, ensuring that liability is imposed only where it is fair, just, and reasonable to do so.
In Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co
Lord Alderson B defined negligence as “the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing somethingwhich a reasonable man would not do.” Similarly, Lord Wright in Lochgelly Ironand4 broke down negligence into three essential elements: (1) duty
Coal Co v McMullan
of care owed by the defendant; (2) a breach of that duty; and (3) damage due tothebreach.
To determine whether a duty of care exists, courts often apply the neighbour principlefrom Donoghue v Stevenson 5. In this case, Mrs Donoghue consumed ginger beer that contained a decomposed snail and sued the manufacturer. The central issue is whether a duty of care applies where no contract is in place. Lord Atkin explained that individuals must take reasonable care so as to prevent acts or failures to act that mayreasonably be expected to cause harm to others. He described “neighbours” as peoplewho are directly or closely affected by one’s conduct and whose welfare shouldbereasonably considered. By applying this principle, Mrs Donoghue was clearlya“neighbour” to Mr Stevenson, as it was foreseeable that the consumer of his product could be harmed if it were unsafe. Generally, neighbour principle helps to identifyaperson’s duty of care when it is reasonably to foresee that his act or omissionwill cause injury to his neighbour, which is the person that is closely and directly affected.
Additionally, the Caparo test, as established in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman6, provides a structured three-stage approach. It was provided that there will be a dutyof care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff if the three factors are fulfilled. Adutyof care will be recognised if: (1) the damage is reasonably foreseeable; (2) there is sufficient proximity between the parties; and (3) it is fair, just, and reasonable toimpose the duty. Notably, “foreseeability” is often used interchangeably with“proximity.” Proximity means the defendant is in a situation where their actions or failures to act could likely cause harm to the plaintiff, making it reasonable to expect them to take precautions.
Teacher’s Duty of Care: Elements of Negligence
In the context of education law, the legal concept of a duty of care of a teacher plays acrucial role in determining liability for negligence. Teachers are responsible for takingreasonable measures to protect students from harm that can be reasonably foreseenwhile under their care. This is because of the close relationship between teacher andstudent which creates a duty of care on the part of a teacher.
An Australian journal titled “When is a Teacher or School Liable inNegligence?”7illustrates that the teacher–student relationship inherently gives rise toa duty of care. Therefore, teachers must prioritise students’ safety by taking reasonable precautions to prevent any form of harm from occurring. This duty is not unlimited; it arises only when the risk of injury can be reasonably predicted.
The neighbour principle, as established in Donoghue v Stevenson, can be usedto apply in order to link a teacher’s duty of care to their students. Here, the student is the “neighbour,” being a person directly and significantly impacted by the teacher’s actions or failures to act. For example, if a teacher fails to supervise students duringaphysical education class, a foreseeable risk of harm exists. Should a student suffer aninjury in such circumstances, this clearly establishes that the teacher had a dutyof care and that the harm could have been anticipated. A breach such as failingtoprovide proper supervision during a sports event amounts to harming their “neighbour.” Thus, a teacher’s duty of care is to ensure students’ safety while under their supervision, particularly where there is a predictable likelihood of harmif proper care is not exercised.
To establish negligence on the part of a teacher, the following elements must beproven:
(i) Duty of Care – The teacher owed a duty of care to the student.
(ii) Foreseeability of Risk – A teacher could reasonably foresee the potential for harm. (iii) Breach of Duty – The teacher did not exercise the appropriate level of care.
(iv) Causation and Damage – The breach caused the student to suffer damage or injury.
These elements are rooted in the key principles set out in Lochgelly Iron and Coal Cov McMullan and Caparo Industries plc v Dickman. Under the Caparo test, theremust be a special relationship between the parties (teacher–student), the harmis reasonably foreseeable, and imposing the duty is fair, just, and reasonable. Wherethese conditions are met, and a breach causes injury, the teacher may be held liable innegligence.
In summary, a teacher’s duty of care stems from their professional responsibilitytosafeguard students from reasonably foreseeable harm. When this duty is breachedandinjury results, the law may hold the teacher liable for negligence, applying establishedprinciples from both common law and statutory interpretation.
Teacher’s Negligence: Duty of Care, Standard of Care, andCaseApplications
Teachers owe a heightened duty to safeguard students by taking appropriateprecautions to students, especially during supervision or risky activities. This dutyis not absolute, liability arises only when harm is foreseeable and causally linkedtoabreach, assessed using the ‘reasonable man’ test adapted to a prudent teacher’s standard.
In the case of Government of Malaysia and Ors v Jumat Bin Mahmud and Anor 8,
the school teacher owes a duty to take reasonable care of the student. An 11-year- old student sustained an injury to his right eye due to the mischievous behaviour of another student. At first instance, the court found the teacher liable for the injury. Onappeal, however, the court examined three key issues which are whether the injurycould reasonably have been anticipated, whether the teacher had taken reasonableprecautions in order to prevent the injury and whether the injury was causally linkedto the teacher’s negligence, particularly regarding inadequate supervision. It was further illustrated that the injury was not reasonably foreseeable in thecircumstances. At the same time, it also provided that the injury was not directlydueto inadequate supervision by the teacher. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the earlier finding of liability was overturned.
This case confirms that the special teacher–student relationship assigns a dutytoteachers to act with due diligence for students’ safety. However, this duty is not absolute; liability only arises where harm is foreseeable and linked to a breach of that duty.
In Radha Subramaniam & Ors v. Aravindran a/l Sugumaran (High Court) judge outlined that “school teacher is under a duty to exercise continuous supervisionover his pupils starting from the time he takes out students from the school premises until they are brought back to school.” The judgement made was upholdingthesession court’s decision.
In establishing the standard of care, ‘Reasonable man’ test mentioned above canbe10 clarified that a schoolmaster must used. In the teaching context, Williams v Eady
exercise the same degree of care for students as a prudent parent would for their ownchildren. The central question is whether a teacher, acting reasonably and prudentlyinthe same circumstances would have taken the necessary precautions to prevent foreseeable harm, and whether failing to do so amounts to a breach of duty.
In the case of Mohamed Raihan bin Ibrahim & Anor v Government of Malaysia&Ors11 where the court determined that the teacher was in breach of the duty of caretowards the student. In this case, the first appellant suffered head injuries after beingaccidentally struck by a changkol during a practical gardening class. The incident was caused by a fellow student towards the first appellant. The respondent was suedfor inadequate supervision of the students and for neglecting to instruct the student responsible for the incident on the proper use of the changkol. The High Court first rejected the claim on the ground that instructions and warnings to use the gardeningtools had been given. The respondent had taken adequate measures to safeguardthestudents during the agricultural activities. On appeal, however, the court heldtherespondents failed to inspect the tools and take all necessary measures to prevent theinjury. The court noted that the distance between the appellant and Raja Aminuddinwas too close between two and seven feet creating a foreseeable risk. Furthermore, there was inadequate supervision regarding the condition of the tools; the changkol inuse had a loose blade, which was hazardous and should have been removed fromservice. Hence, the teacher is said to have breached the duty of care for not inspecting the tools for safety, leaving the dangerous changkol in use as well as not noticing the student’s close proximity and providing no explanation for this oversight.
In Hussack v Chilliwack School District No. 33
the student was struck in the face with a field hockey stick during his physical education class. Because of this, he was sustaining a concussion which later developed into a serious somatoformdisorder. The trial judge found that the P.E teacher had breached his duty of care byallowing Devon to participate in field hockey without progressively attainingthenecessary skills. It was also determined that the accident had caused the appellant todevelop a somatoform disorder. It further clarified that no negligence arises if theactivity suits the student’s age and condition, is taught gradually, uses proper equipment, and is adequately supervised given its risks.
All in all, negligence in schools’ contexts focus on the duty of care teachers owe totheir students, which involves taking reasonable steps to ensure their safety. Whileteachers are not expected to guarantee absolute safety, they must supervise their students appropriately. The cases reviewed emphasise the importance of the‘reasonable man’ standard in identifying the breaches of duty, with teachers beingheld responsible if they fail to provide adequate supervision, give proper instructions on using dangerous tools, or maintain a safe environment and so on. If teachers takesufficient precautions, they are generally not liable for unforeseen incidents, but failing to do so can lead to liability.
Conclusion
13 stated that the government maintains a Deputy Education Minister Wong Kah Woh zero-tolerance policy toward any negligence that compromises student safety. He alsohighlighted that schools should carry out thorough risk assessments for all activities and enhance civic education programs to cultivate empathy and compassion amongstudents.In today’s society, where children’s welfare is paramount, the issue of teacher negligence transcends individual incidents; it reflects systemic expectations and public trust in the education system. Addressing teacher negligence is not merely a legal imperative, it is a societal necessity to ensure that every student can learnwithin a safe, caring, and accountable environment.
In light of recent incidents, such as the alleged negligence case involving a teacher that resulted in serious harm to a student, it is clear that teacher negligence remains apressing issue in Malaysia’s education system. Schools owe a duty of care equivalent to the responsibility a parent has towards their child. Thus, ensuring the safetyandwell-being of students is considered as one of the most important responsibilities. Tostrengthen accountability, the law could be refined to provide clearer statutoryguidelines on the scope of teachers’ responsibilities and the standard of care requiredin different school settings. The judiciary plays a crucial role in interpretingandenforcing these standards, ensuring that breaches are met with proportionate legal consequences, while the legislature can introduce targeted amendments to address gaps in existing statutes. Meanwhile, civil society, including parent–teacher associations and advocacy groups, can contribute by raising awareness, promotingsafety training for educators, and encouraging a culture where student welfare is paramount. Together, these efforts can create a more robust framework that prevents negligence and safeguards the trust placed in the education system.
In a nutshell, addressing teacher negligence is essential to protecting students’ safety, maintaining public trust, and upholding the integrity of Malaysia’s education system. Strengthened laws, vigilant enforcement, and active community engagement can workhand in hand to create a safer and more accountable learning environment for all children.
Reference(S):
Case laws
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.(1856) 11 Ex Ch 781, 156 ER 1047 Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Government of Malaysia & Ors v Jumat Bin Mahmud & Anor [1977] 2 MLJ 103 Hussack v. School District No. 33, 258 B. C. C. A. (Chilliwack, 2011)
Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co v McMullan [1934] AC 1
Mohamed Raihan Bin Ibrahim & Anor v. Government Of Malaysia &Ors [1981] 2MLJ 27, FC
Radha Subramaniam & Ors v. Aravindran a/l Sugumaran (Respondent/Plaintiff) Williams v Eady (1893) 10 TLR 41
News Report
Bernama, ‘No Compromise On Negligence In Student Safety, Says Wong ’ Bernama(Kuala Lumpur, 24 July 2025) <https://bernama.com/en/news.php//crime_courts/general/news.php?id=2448931>
Hafiz Hassan, ‘In loco parentis ― Hafiz Hassan’ Malay Mail (31 March 2022) <https://www.malaymail.com/news/what-you-think/2022/03/31/in-loco-parentis- hafiz-hassan/2050674>
John Bunyan, ‘Two nursery teachers in Ipoh charged with alleged negligence leadingto boy’s drowning’ Malay Mail (Ipoh, 7 January 2025) <https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/01/07/two-nursery-teachers-in ipoh-charged-with-alleged-negligence-leading-to-boys-drowning/162319>
Online Journals
Helen Newnham, ‘When is a teacher or school liable in negligence?’ (2000) 25(1) <https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1289&context=ajte> accessed9August 2025
1 John Bunyan, ‘Two nursery teachers in Ipoh charged with alleged negligence leading to boy’s drowning’ Malay Mail (Ipoh, 7 January 2025) <https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/01/07/two-nursery-teachers-in-ipoh-charged-with- alleged-negligence-leading-to-boys-drowning/162319>2, it was mentioned that in loco parentis is
2 Hafiz Hassan, ‘In loco parentis ― Hafiz Hassan’ Malay Mail (31 March 2022) <https://www.malaymail.com/news/what-you-think/2022/03/31/in-loco-parentis-hafiz- hassan/2050674>3,
3 [1856] 11 Ex Ch 781, 156 ER 1047
4 [1934] AC 1
5 [1932] AC 562
6 [1990] 2 AC 605
7 Helen Newnham, ‘When is a teacher or school liable in negligence?’ (2000) 25(1) <https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1289&context=ajte> accessed 9 August 2025
8 [1977] 2 MLJ 103
9 (Respondent/Plaintiff)
10 (1893) 10 TLR 41
11 [1981] 2 MLJ 27, FC
12 258 B. C. C. A. (Chilliwack, 2011)
13 Bernama, ‘No Compromise On Negligence In Student Safety, Says Wong ’ Bernama (Kuala Lumpur, 24 July 2025) <https://bernama.com/en/news.php//crime_courts/general/news.php?id=2448931>
