Court rules local teacher can sue education department for assault
MBOMBELA - Four years after the assault on Richard Prinsloo, a recent court ruling will enable the retired Hoërskool Bergvlam educator to take steps to sue the Mpumalanga Department of Education to the tune of R8m.
This judgement was recently handed down by the Mpumalanga High Court.
Prinsloo was attacked by a learner in his classroom at the school on March 5, 2018.
‘Turning to the facts of this case, it is equally obvious that the assault on the applicant [Prinsloo] arose in the course of his employment’
He had allegedly made a remark about the learner’s recently deceased mother before the youngster attacked.
The attack happened in full view of the schoolchildren, who had to restrain the learner and pull him off Prinsloo.
Prinsloo’s glasses were broken and he sustained injuries to his eye, elbow, ribs and knee.
After the incident, he was subjected to a disciplinary hearing, and later resigned as a teacher as a result.
On October 20, 2020, Prinsloo issued summons against the Mpumalanga education department, suing for damages suffered from the incident and for loss of income, totalling in excess of R8m. He said the department had failed to protect him and/or to give him the necessary support following the attack.
The department had opposed the application, stating that the claim lacked prospects of success, and was of the view that Prinsloo was compelled to claim under the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (Coida).
The department further submitted that Prinsloo’s injuries arose out of and in the scope of his employment.
The department also submitted that Prinsloo had made a late delivery of a statuary notice to the department of his intention to take legal action against an organ of the state.
Mbombela High Court’s Judge Takalani Ratshibvumo, however, stated that Prinsloo had given an explanation as to why the notice had been filed late: he had not been aware of this legal provision, was only interested in dealing with the disciplinary hearing and also had to raise funds to instruct the attorneys to lodge this claim, which at the time he did not have.
Ratshibvumo said in the ruling that an “accident” is defined under Coida as an accident arising out of and in the course of an employee’s employment and resulting in a personal injury, illness or the death of the employee.
“Turning to the facts of this case, it is equally obvious that the assault on the applicant [Prinsloo] arose in the course of his employment,” said the judge.
He said the question at hand was whether the assault was out of his employment, and asked what connection the assault had with the working duties of the teacher.
“This is unless the applicant was a boxing coach, which he was not,” he said.
He further said the motive of the learner attacking Prinsloo is irrelevant.
“I am unable to see how assault on a teacher on duty at school arises out of his employment. I cannot conceive of the risk of assault being incidental to teaching.
“The argument that the claim is barred by Section 35(1) of Coida is therefore with no merit, as the evidence presented does not show that the assault arose out of the applicant’s employment,” Ratshibvumo said.
He also ordered the department to pay Prinsloo’s legal costs for the application.
The main matter will be set down for hearing.