Thread by @BukkyShonibare

Can a legal case of negligence be brought against #ChrislandSchools?

Straight answer: YES!

1) Negligence occurs when a person - or an institution as is this case, fails to be careful, and that carelessness leads to damage. Oxford Dictionary defines negligence as “the failure...

2) ...to do or recognize something that a reasonable person would do or recognize.” Negligence is a civil wrong or tort and it is a ground for legal liability.

In the #ChrislandSchools incident, there is clearly an omission or failure to take necessary actions and exercise...

3) ...the standard of care that a reasonable person or institution will take in protecting the children against the risk of sexual activities and the consequences arising therefrom. This is particularly so in our overly sexualized world and considering that sexual activities...

4) ...among children of that age can reasonably be expected and given the surrounding circumstances.

Because negligence is a question of fact and not of law, if the parents bring a civil case, the judge will assess and decide on it based on the facts the parents present and...

5) ...can prove. This means that the standard of prove will be based on the preponderance of the evidence (or balance of probabilities) that the parents can establish in demonstrating that Chrisland Schools was, indeed, negligent.

In proving that #ChrislandSchools was...

6) ...negligent, the parents will need to establish three overlapping facts:

- First, is there a duty of care on Chrisland Schools?
- Second, has there been a breach of that duty of care?
- Third, has there been loss arising from the breach of duty of care?

7) First, DUTY OF CARE: It should be noted that ‘duty of care’ arises in this case because #ChrislandSchools, at the time of the incident, was entrusted with the children and, thus, placed in a position to ensure the children are protected from any risk or harm.

8) #ChristlandSchools owes a duty of care to the parents also because it is a school, and as a school, it essentially holds itself out as having the professional expertise, skill, or competence that is reasonably expected of and associated with such professional entity in...

9) ...discharging their functions.

Second, BREACH OF THE DUTY OF CARE: The parents will need to show that the duty of care placed on #ChrislandSchools was breached. In determining this, the court will use a “reasonable man test,”which poses the question of what a reasonable...

10) ...person would have done in the circumstance similar to that of this incident. Would a “reasonable man” have contemplated or foreseen what unchaperoned children of both sexes can do with the freedom they have?

Third, LOSS ARISING FROM THE BREACH OF DUTY: The parents...

11) ...would need to prove that they have suffered loss as a result of #ChrislandSchools’ breach of the duty to take care of their children. To do this, the court will consider two requirements: first, is the ‘causation in fact,’ whereby the court will ascertain whether the...

12) ...damage or loss that the parents claim is caused by Chrisland Schools’ breach of the established duty of care. In this regard, the judge will apply the ‘but for’ test in holding that the damage the parents and the children suffers would not have occurred ‘but for’ the...

13) ...negligence of #ChrislandSchools to take adequate care.

The second is the ‘remoteness of damage,’ whereby the court will determine if the consequence or loss arising from the breach of duty is not too remote that even a reasonable man would have been able to foresee it...

14) ...and take necessary actions.

In summary, #ChrislandSchools was negligent as it owed a duty of care to the parents, and this duty of care was breached, and the breach of the duty caused damage (emotional, reputational, mental, etc) to the parents and their children.

/END.