An accident on the playground at Colégio Leonardo da Vinci, in Braga, in 2019, led to a legal dispute that reached the Supreme Court of Justice. A student suffered a broken leg while playing catch shortly after classes ended, questioning the limits of school responsibility for children.
The accident reported by the Público newspaper occurred during a supervised recess, but the student fell while running and jumping, and was immediately assisted by a physical education teacher who put a splint on him while he waited for the ambulance. The student returned to school the following month with only Canadians and no permanent sequelae.
Legal action and alleged lack of supervision
The mother took action against the school and the insurance company, asking for compensation of 60,000 euros. The argument focused on the alleged lack of supervision, despite the fact that the playground was being used by older students at the time.
The family’s lawyer argued that allowing children to run around on the playground increased the risk of accidents and that catching could be considered a dangerous activity due to the unpredictability of their movements. He also mentioned the monthly fee, around 500 euros, and the fact that the student’s sister studied at the same school.
Courts reject college liability
The Guimarães Court concluded that preventing the accident would imply the constant presence of an employee next to each child, severely limiting freedom of movement and school experience. The judges recalled that running, jumping and stumbling are natural behaviors and that the law provides preventive measures only for truly dangerous activities, such as handling flammable or explosive materials.
The decision considered that the student’s fall falls within the normal range of children’s games and that the school’s responsibility cannot be extended to all unavoidable incidents on the playground.
Appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice
The mother appealed to the Supreme Court of Justice, without being exempt from costs, due to her business activity in the hotel sector. The court upheld previous decisions, clarifying that the game of tag does not approach situations of extreme risk. The Supreme Court reinforced that the unpredictability associated with games does not place these activities on the same level of danger as recognized critical practices.
The case establishes that unwanted accidents during typical playground games cannot be completely prevented through additional vigilance. The decision was understood as a precedent on the limits of schools’ responsibility, balancing the need for safety with the freedom and normality of children’s behavior.
The courts also highlighted that freedom of movement and school experience are essential for children’s development and cannot be sacrificed in the name of absolute surveillance. The student’s family was not satisfied with the final decision and the student’s mother’s lawyer is still considering filing a new appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice or even a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.
The case, followed by the newspaper, reinforces the understanding that accidents in the playground, although unwanted, are part of the school experience and should not be considered automatic negligence on the part of educational institutions.
Also read:
