Have any questions? Call us: 
What began as a fun and exciting primary school athletics trial culminated in a serious injury to one of the participants that lead to a Supreme Court compensation battle over more than 5 years.
In July 2019, 11-year-old Addison Stanberg participated in a long jump competition at Neutral Bay Public School in Sydney.
Having completed several jumps without incident, his fifth or sixth attempt ended in a catastrophic landing with his feet striking a hard surface beneath the sand.
He fell backwards having sustained a major spinal injury with permanent damage to the L4/5 disc and ongoing back pain.
His negligence claim against the State of New South Wales – which was responsible for the school’s operation – alleged it had failed to ensure that the long jump pit was safely maintained.
It contained – the student argued – an insufficient sand depth and that irregular and infrequent raking created an unreasonable risk of injury for a sport accident to occur.
At first instance, the District Court dismissed Stanberg’s claim. Judge Robert Newlinds found that the school had taken sufficient precautions by replenishing the sand earlier in the season, having teachers supervise the event, and directing that the sand be raked after every second or third jump.
The judge placed considerable reliance on the evidence of two supervising teachers who, despite vague and largely reconstructed recollections, expressed their views that the sand appeared adequate on the day.
Additionally, he accepted the State’s assertion that the pit was supplemented by ‘Softfall’ material at its base, providing additional safety.
The youth appealed.
There was no reliable evidence supporting the trial judge’s finding that ‘Softfall’ material lined the base of the pit, the appeal judges concluded. The evidence about Softfall was only that it had surrounded the edges of the pit.
Justice John Griffiths in delivering the lead judgment concluded that this factual error was material and had influenced the primary judge’s ultimate finding and had led him into error.
He also accepted Sandberg’s contention that the trial judge had given undue weight to the supervising teachers’ vague and speculative recollections. Their evidence, given nearly five years post-incident, lacked precision – he observed – and was inherently defensive given their supervisory roles.
Such retrospective reconstruction must be treated cautiously, especially in the absence of contemporaneous records or specific recollection, he ruled.
Justice Griffith noted the student’s unchallenged testimony describing the sport accident and his feet striking a hard surface as he was injured strongly suggested inadequate sand depth at the landing point.
That conclusion was ever more compelling when considered in the context of 30 to 50 other students having jumped earlier, with raking occurring only after every second or third jump – a practice that was contrary to Little Athletics Australia safety guidelines.
The appeal court concluded that ensuring sufficient sand depth and raking after each jump were low-burden precautions that ought reasonably to have been taken. The risk of injury was foreseeable and preventable, making the school’s failure to maintain these standards a breach of its duty to the student.
Turning to damages, the trial judge had awarded Stanberg only 20% of the most extreme case for general damages and dismissed his claim for future economic loss.
The appeal judges on the other hand ruled that his chronic spinal condition would likely have ongoing financial repercussions. They adjusted the award, ultimately ordering the State to pay $276,500 plus interest and costs.
Categories: sport injury , School Injury