A mother instituted a R7-m in damages claim against the North West MEC for Education after her son was hit on the hand with a stick by a teacher at school nine years ago, but the court ordered that she should receive R30 000 as compensation on behalf of her son.
The mother turned to the North West High Court, sitting in Mafikeng, following the incident in 2015. The R7-m she claimed in damages included compensation for future medical expenses, loss of amenities of life, and pain and suffering.
This is based on an incident when the child, who was six-years-old and in Grade R at the time, was assaulted with a stick on his hand by a teacher at the primary school which he attended.
The mother testified that O (the child) came home during the afternoon of 4 August 2015 and reported that he was assaulted with a “knobkierie” on his hand by his teacher.
She questioned him about what happened and left it there. Four days later, his hand changed colour and turned blue. She took him to the clinic for medical treatment. There was, however, no improvement.
A few days later, she took him back to the clinic and was referred to a hospital for further medical treatment. She also reported the incident at the school, the mother told Judge President Ronald Hendricks.
No evidence was presented to the court on behalf of the education department.
An educational psychologist, meanwhile, testified that he was injured at a vulnerable stage of his development. This resulted in him performing far below the accepted level for his age. He could only cite the alphabet instead of writing words, the expert said.
She added that the incident affected his emotional functioning. “He is fearful and does not feel safe. He cannot write nor spell words. The more years go by, the more his performance drops,” she said.
She identified him for placement in a special school and told the court that the incident negatively impacted his future development. According to her, he has no educational potential.
The expert was confronted by the fact that the child, in any event, had delayed development before the incident. The expert was steadfast in her opinion that the slap on the hand with the stick was the cause of the child’s problems.
An industrial psychologist, meanwhile, testified that during consultation, O allowed his mother to answer the questions posed to him. His mother was overbearing, she said. The mother also confirmed to the expert that up to the incident, the child was “fine.”
Judge Hendricks commented that the court must, in the absence of evidence from the MEC, decide this matter solely on the evidence presented during the plaintiff’s case. He said the evidence that O was assaulted by a teacher, who also served as a carer for the younger children, was not denied by the MEC.
This, the judge said, is also a contravention of the Schools Act. The evidence of the plaintiff on the issue of liability is therefore accepted by this court, which found the education department thus to be 100% liable for the damages which could be proven.
In addressing the issue of how much damages should be awarded, Judge Hendricks said sight should not be lost of the fact that O did not lose the use of his hand and neither has he been rendered disabled in that regard.
“He suffered pain and discomfort for approximately two weeks in total, received medical treatment at a clinic and in hospital, and there is no evidence of any permanent disability,” he said.
There is also no evidence that O in future will not overcome his fear and anxiety. The fact that he failed Grade 3 cannot be ascribed to what happened to him in Grade R, as he passed Grade 1 and 2 after the incident.
One of the experts conceded that “things can still change” and “he is a child of average intelligence” and “the child can still learn.” “O’s future is definitely not destined for doom. He has retained his learning ability and is described as a child of average intelligence,” the judge said.
Judge Hendricks also referred to the expert evidence that the hit on the hand “psychologically scarred” the child for life, and said they simply did not deal with his late development milestones.
The court did not accept that his earning capacity one day will be so detrimentally and adversely affected because of this single incident, as this was based on mere speculation in quantifying such damages.
“The plaintiff has failed to prove that O will suffer a reduction in his earning capacity,” the judge said in awarding R30 000 in general damages.
Pretoria News
zelda.venter@inl.co.za