“The question of what amounts to reasonable care in a given case must be seen in the context that it is neither practicable nor desirable to maintain a system of education that seeks to exclude every risk of injury”.
“However, it seems to me, the area being large, and that any regular inspection would be time consuming, and perhaps expensive, and that in any event, the school had no reason to institute such a system. There had been no complaints. In the absence of complaint or any incident, this step, it would seem to me, was not reasonably called for. If notice of some problem had been given before this incident, the school might have had an obligation, it seems to me, to institute a system to identify such dangers…If the area had been top dressed and levelled, and there had been no prior notice, it seems to me that no reasonable person would require the school to institute such a system of inspection”.
“The primary judge erred in finding that the reasonable response of the respondent to the foreseeable risk of injury to the students playing touch football from a hole, depression or indentation of the size, shape and depth of that into which the appellant stepped was, in effect, only to take irregular and ad hoc measures which, to say the least, rather hit or miss. On the contrary, the respondents duty to take reasonable precautions for the safety of its students playing the running sports of soccer and touch football upon the playing area required it to implement a regular system of inspection of that area for the purpose of identifying and remedying holes, depressions or indentations of the nature of those which the Deputy Principal of the respondent regarded as being unsafe for children playing ball sports”.