Raja Azlan Shah FJ (delivering the judgment of the Court):

On 1 March 1977 we allowed this appeal and said that we would give our reasons at a later date. We now proceed to do so.

This appeal raises an important point, and it is the second occasion on which such a question relating to schools has come before our courts.

On the first occasion a party of students and teachers of Chung San School, Riam Road, Miri, Sarawak, went on a picnic to Tanjong Lobang, and the deceased (a school girl aged 11 years) while playing a ball game with her friends in waist deep water, suddenly moved into a depression and was drowned. Lee Hun Hoe J (as he then was) in dismissing the case held as a second limb of his judgment that a schoolmaster's duty towards his pupil is the same as that of a careful father, i.e., to take such care of his pupils as a careful father would take of his children (see Chen Soon Lee V. Chong Voon Pin & Ors..

The second occasion concerns this appeal. The facts are short and simple. The plaintiff aged 11 years old was a Standard v. student of Sekolah Dato Kiana Maamor Jalan Range, Seremban. He was injured in his right eye when another pupil, Azmi bin Manan ("Azmi"), celebrated his teacher's momentary inattention in class by pricking the plaintiff's thigh with a pin which produced a shock causing the latter to turn round and his right eye came in contact with the sharp end of the pencil which Azmi was holding. The eye had to be removed subsequently. Azmi said it was an accident. The trial judge agreed that he did not deliberately stab the plaintiff's eye with a pencil. I think the evidence favours such an inference, otherwise the serious injury sustained by the plaintiff would have been immediately noticed. It is in evidence that Azmi was a playful boy and had on previous occasions poked the plaintiff and other boys with a pin or pencil but never in their eyes, and that was done without the knowledge of the form teacher or Mrs. Kenny in whose class the accident occurred. It also never occurred to any pupil to complain of Azmi's abnormal propensity.

It is common ground that at the time of the accident Mrs. Kenny had given written work to the class consisting of 40 pupils and it was during the period when she was doing her work at the table that Azmi wandered about pricking a boy sitting next to the plaintiff and also the plaintiff. It was argued before the trial judge that there was lack of supervision in Mrs. Kenny's class thus resulting in the accident which caused the injury to the plaintiff. That, it was contended, constituted breach of duty which the appellants owed the plaintiff. If Mrs. Kenny had paid particular attention to Azmi's behaviour, or misbehaviour, the accident would not have happened and therefore the plaintiff would not have sustained the serious injury.

The learned trial judge gave judgement for the plaintiff. After addressing his mind to paras. 297, 299 and 301 in Charlesworth on Negligence, 5th ed, he held as follows:

I am satisfied that there has not been sufficient or reasonable supervision of the class by Mrs. Kenny at the material time and that the injury inflicted by Azmi bin Manan on the infant plaintiff was caused by her negligence. It is established that Azmi bin Manan was a playful and mischievous boy who used to go round and disturb other boys especially those sitting at the back and had either Mrs. Kenny or the form teacher bothered to find out she would at least have discovered that Azmi bin Manan had been carrying a pencil with him when he wandered about in the class-room and therefore ought to have warned him and the class as a whole not to play with sharp pencils. As it was, such a warning was given only after the incident. Mrs. Kenny was not attending to any particular pupil and if she had paid proper attention to what was going on at the back of the class she certainly would have noticed that Azmi bin Manan was missing from his desk and found out what he was up to. Mrs.