What happened
On 29 June 2012, a 15-year-old with rugby league experience took part in a supervised game combining elements of several football codes. He sustained a head injury while contesting the ball and later developed seizures. His allegations concerned both the way the game was conducted and the school's response after the collision.
The issues
The court considered whether the hybrid game, including its high-ball contest, breached the school's duty despite differing from formal touch football rules. It separately examined the recreational and inherent-risk defences under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), and whether the mild traumatic brain injury caused the epilepsy.
The court's decision
The statutory risk defences failed: the game was not a dangerous recreational activity and the collision risk was not unavoidable through reasonable care. Nevertheless, the game was appropriately conducted and supervised, so breach was not established. The court also rejected the alleged causal link to epilepsy and entered judgment for the State with costs.
What this case shows
Failure of a statutory defence does not establish negligence. The decision assesses the educational value of the game, the students' skills and the supervision actually provided, while treating medical causation as a separate evidentiary question.
Why another case may differ
The result concerns this hybrid game, its supervision and the experience of the participating students; it does not resolve liability for every school sport. The damages assessment was expressly conditional on the court being wrong about liability and causation, and was not an award.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →