Teacher liability: How far does it go?

The safety of students is a core responsibility of schools and their staff. But how far does a teacher’s duty extend when it comes to intervening in schoolyard fights, writes Beth Rolton.

The safety of students is a core responsibility of schools and their staff. But how far does a teacher’s duty extend when it comes to intervening in schoolyard fights? The recent Court of Appeal decision in State of New South Wales v T2 (by his tutor T1) [2025] NSWCA 165 sheds light on the extent of a school’s duty of care, particularly in cases involving student violence beyond school grounds and hours.

In this case, a 14-year-old student was brutally assaulted by 12 fellow students after school. The attack took place in a park across from the school, after the aggressors prevented the plaintiff from boarding the school bus. The ringleader, who had a history of violent behaviour and had just returned from suspension, played a central role in orchestrating the attack. The plaintiff sued the state of NSW, alleging that the school failed in its duty of care by not providing adequate supervision as students departed for home.

The Court of Appeal upheld the earlier Supreme Court decision ruling in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the school’s duty of care extended beyond school hours and premises. The court found that the school was well aware of the ringleader’s history of violence, the past incidents of attacks at the park, and the plaintiff’s particular vulnerability due to prior bullying and mental health conditions. Despite this, the school did not take adequate steps to mitigate foreseeable risks, such as monitoring the ringleader’s behaviour, providing staff supervision at the end of the school day, or offering a safe space for students in need.

This case has significant implications for teachers and school administrators, especially regarding their legal liability in preventing and intervening in student violence. The ruling establishes that a school’s responsibility does not end when the final bell rings. If there is a known risk of harm occurring off-campus but closely linked to school activities, schools must take proactive steps to mitigate it. Monitoring high-risk students is essential, and schools must properly assess and manage students with histories of violence, including implementing reintegration plans after suspension and ensuring adequate supervision.

Having staff members present during student departure times can deter violent incidents. The absence of supervision was a major factor in the court’s finding of liability. Providing safe spaces for vulnerable students is also crucial. The closed administration office left the plaintiff without a place to seek help, which was a significant failure in duty of care. Schools should ensure that students have access to safe spaces before and after school.

Teachers are not expected to physically intervene in violent situations if doing so would put them at risk. However, they do have a duty to report signs of brewing conflicts or student tensions to administration, supervise high-risk areas, intervene verbally where safe and appropriate, and ensure safe dismissals by advocating for increased security measures if needed.

The State of New South Wales v T2 (by his tutor T1) decision highlights the serious legal implications schools face when failing to protect students from foreseeable harm. Schools must adopt proactive measures to supervise students effectively and safeguard those at risk of bullying and violence. For teachers, the case serves as a reminder of their role in maintaining a safe school environment – not just within the school gates, but beyond them as well.

Beth Rolton is a partner and Cairns leader at Travis Schultz & Partners.