Who is liable in the event of an accident on a school trip?

Teachers take on a great deal of responsibility for their pupils every day. They have a comprehensive duty of supervision and care towards the children and young people entrusted to them. Teachers should therefore have a basic understanding of their legal responsibilities and be familiar with the legal framework governing their profession.

The Swiss Teachers' Association (LCH) has therefore commissioned a guide on the subject, an expanded and revised version of which was published in January this year.

The first part of the new guide deals with criminal, liability and personnel law. In the second part, the authors answer 75 questions on various topics, such as the following:

• Is a teacher allowed to remove ticks from their students?
• Who is liable if an accident occurs on the ski slopes during a school trip?
• At what age are bike tours permitted?

It can also be important for parents to know where teachers' legal responsibility begins and ends. The following case shows how complex situations can be.

School trip to the Cheisacher Tower

in 2017, the District Court of Laufenburg AG had to decide whether two teachers were guilty of negligent homicide. A twelve-year-old pupil had fallen to his death during a school trip to the Cheisacherturm tower in Sulz AG. The trip involved five classes (a total of 104 pupils) and ten teachers and accompanying adults.

During lunch break, two students left their group to explore a slope next to the barbecue area. While climbing, one of the students slipped down the embankment and fell over the edge of a twelve-metre-high cliff. The other student informed the teachers, who immediately called the emergency services using the Rega emergency app. They were able to rescue the seriously injured student 35 minutes after receiving the call. The student died a week later from his serious injuries.

Teachers can only be expected to avoid obvious risks – it is not possible to rule out all dangers.

Proceedings for negligent homicide were initiated against the organiser of the school trip and the class teacher. The public prosecutor initially wanted to drop the case, but only brought charges after the parents lodged a complaint.

The public prosecutor's office accused the teachers of not informing the pupils sufficiently about the danger posed by the steep embankment and of not supervising them closely enough. The teachers should have noticed that two pupils had left the rest area. A teacher should have been positioned in front of the embankment with the clear task of supervising the pupils.

No unrealistic demands on teachers

The district court did not agree with the public prosecutor's office. It concluded that the two teachers could not be accused of negligence. They had checked the barbecue area twice, organised wood, set up observation posts during the break, but were unable to recognise the danger posed by the steep embankment.

The pupils were described as «average» teenagers who, due to their age and character, did not require constant supervision. Teachers should not be expected to meet unrealistic demands. Both teachers were acquitted of the charge of negligent homicide.

Teachers may only administer medication to pupils after consulting their parents – even in emergencies.

The case shows that even with careful preparation and planning, not all sources of danger can be ruled out. Teachers can therefore only be expected to avoid recognisable risks.

The degree of care also depends on the age and understanding of the pupils. In the case of a twelve-year-old, unless there are other circumstances in the individual case, it can be assumed that he will not leave the rest area without permission and practise climbing on a twelve-metre-high cliff face without close supervision. If younger children had been involved, closer and more intensive supervision would have been required.

Dispensing of medication

Teachers may only administer medication to pupils after consulting their parents or guardians. Those with parental responsibility decide on medical interventions. Only treating wounds with plasters and bandages and disinfecting them is unproblematic.

Even in emergencies, do not administer any medication before the arrival of medical personnel. This applies to both prescription and non-prescription drugs. Non-prescription does not mean harmless. Although many painkillers are available without a prescription, various precautions must be taken before use.

Exceptions can be made for pupils with chronic illnesses or allergies, provided that consent and precise instructions have been given by their parents or guardians. However, teachers cannot be obliged to take on this responsibility. If they do not feel comfortable administering medication, for example high doses or injections, they must make this clear in advance. In such cases, alternative arrangements must be made, for example by providing an accompanying person.

Knowledge creates security

After these admittedly rather technical examples of teachers' areas of responsibility, I would not want to claim that teachers always have «one foot in prison». However, they do show that teachers need to be aware of the scope of their supervisory and duty of care responsibilities in order to be able to recognise and assess any risks. This knowledge helps them to continue to teach freely and appropriately and to safely initiate extracurricular activities.

Incidentally, teachers are permitted to remove ticks from their pupils, but are not obliged to do so. No court ruling has yet been made on whether parents or guardians must give their consent in advance or be informed afterwards. According to the Federal Office of Public Health, ticks should be removed quickly. The professional removal of a tick by a teacher, followed by mandatory notification of the parents or guardians, is therefore not objectionable.