A Norman Manley High School student who sued the school, the Ministry of Education, and the Attorney General after he was punched in the mouth and injured by a pupil, who accused him of stealing his shoe polish, was awarded several million in damages by a Supreme Court judge, who found that “the teacher’s failure to intervene is a clear breach of the duty and the standard of care owed” to the injured child.

However, Supreme Court judge Justice Sonya Wint-Blair, in deciding the matter, which was heard on February 17 and 18, 2025 and January 12, 2026, dismissed the claims against the school and the Ministry of Education, stating that “there is no legal basis to make any orders against the first or second defendants” as it was the school board which should have been named as a defendant alongside the Attorney General.

In the claim, which was brought by the child’s mother on his behalf, Norman Manley High School in St Andrew was named as the first defendant, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Information as the second defendant, and the Attorney General as the third defendant.

“The defendants clearly stated in their defence that the second defendant lacked legal personality as it was not a body corporate and therefore not a proper party. The second defendant is a public body, which is governed by the Education Act. The Attorney General is sued in a representative capacity pursuant to the Crown Proceedings Act and is the proper party to be sued under the Education Act,” Justice Wint-Blair schooled.

She said the high school, which is a public educational institution owned by the Government of Jamaica, is classified as a secondary educational institution under the Education Act. The Act prescribes that every public educational institution shall be administered by a board of management or in accordance with a scheme approved by the minister.

“In this claim, it is the board, as a statutory body, that ought to have been named as a defendant. Both the first and second defendants are non-juristic persons and are incapable of being sued. Notably, no application was made to the court during the pretrial stages for the removal of these defendants. Therefore, the entire proceedings against the first and second defendants are a nullity. There is no legal basis to make any orders against the first or second defendants,” Justice Wint-Blair pointed out.

Attorney Carlene McFarlane, instructed by law firm McNeil and McFarlane, in arguing that the boy’s injuries resulted from the defendants’ negligence, said they had failed to provide proper supervision to ensure the safety of students, particularly the claimant; failed to exercise reasonable care for the claimant’s safety while he was in their care and control; failed to take any or all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the claimant; and failed to put in place any other proper safeguards to guarantee and preserve the safety of the claimant.

In the March 2017 incident which took place while class was in session, a male student, said to be a friend of the claimant, became upset, complaining that someone had taken his shoe polish. The claimant and that student were seated together, facing a female teacher who happened to be sitting in for the original subject teacher who was absent that day. The student, in accusing the claimant more than once of being the one to take the shoe polish, pushed him and punched him in the mouth, knocking out a tooth despite him proclaiming his innocence. The boy, who was rushed to the hospital, had his teeth wired together for three months, during which he had to visit the clinic multiple times for cleaning because he was unable to clean his teeth normally.

According to court documents, he still has a missing tooth, and the two adjacent teeth remain loose. He was on a soft diet for several months and still cannot eat certain foods, and is unable to afford an orthodontist. He needs a graft to enable an implant and would require at least three implants.

According to the young man, while the incident happened several years ago, his teeth occasionally ache, and two still shake. He also said he is very self-conscious about his missing tooth and dislikes his smile as the missing tooth affects his confidence.

Justice Wint-Blair, in assessing whether, based on the evidence, the defendants had been negligent, said, “The teacher was an employee of the Crown acting within the scope of her employment at the material time. There has been no suggestion by either side that this was not the case. The liability of the Crown is vicarious only if it can be shown that the Crown servant breached a duty owed to the claimant.”

Said Justice Wint-Blair: “The standard of care is expressed in terms of what a reasonable man would do in the circumstances. The standard of care for a teacher requires a teacher to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to prevent physical injury to the plaintiff.

“Based on the authorities, it is clear that Norman Manley High School had a duty of care to ensure the safety and well-being of the claimant, who was a student entitled to such care,” she pointed out.

In determining whether that duty of care had been breached, the judge said based on the evidence, despite claims to the contrary by the school’s then vice-principal, the incident took place in the presence of the teacher who, for the 10-minute encounter, “did not act to quell this disruption”.

“There is no evidence that the teacher took any action. This failure by the teacher is a glaring omission. The teacher’s failure to take action to resolve what began as an outburst allowed it to escalate unchecked into an act of violence. The omission and inaction amounted to a failure to do what a reasonable schoolmaster would do in the circumstances of a teacher supervising a class in which there is disruptive behaviour. There was no effort to enforce the rules or to initiate disciplinary action. The teacher’s failure to intervene is a clear breach of the duty and the standard of care owed to the claimant,” the judge said in assessing the evidence.

In noting that school authorities are not expected to “foresee everything that could possibly happen”, she said conflicts between students are not unforeseeable, pointing out that this is why the school has a strict policy prohibiting violence and employs teachers trained in conflict resolution.

“The teacher in this case failed to apply the conflict resolution training received and expected by the school in line with their violence-prevention policies. This failure allowed [the child who threw the punch] to act unchecked and unabated until he delivered the blow that caused the injury,” Justice Wint-Blair declared.

She added that, “But for the teacher’s inaction, the claimant would not likely have been harmed.”

“The claimant has provided sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the breach of duty and the injuries he suffered. The teacher’s negligent inaction is a cause of the claimant’s injury, which may arise from a chain of events giving rise to liability on the part of a defendant. The claimant has established the events leading up to his injury, and there was no intervening event to break the chain of causation. The claimant has satisfied the court that, for want of care, the defendant’s negligence substantially accounted for his injury. The defendant has not rebutted the presumption of liability and is found liable in negligence,” she ruled further.

In the end, Justice Wint-Blair, in handing down her judgment in favour of the former student, awarded him general damages in the sum of $2.3 million with interest at three per cent from January 30, 2019 to January 12, 2026. He was also awarded special damages in the sum of $4,200 with interest at three per cent from March 27, 2017 to January 12, 2026.

In addressing the student’s witness statement, in which he said he would require at least three implants and further medical care for which quotations were made, the judge said in the absence of the evidential basis for those quotations “they, unfortunately, must be disregarded”.

Stock: The court found that but for the teacher’s inaction, the claimant would not likely have been harmed during a fight in school with a schoolmate.