Anyone who has raised children is well aware of the frequency of injuries and accidents, often resulting from the playfulness and lack of caution of our young ones. Accidents happen in kindergartens, classrooms, during recess in schoolyards, sports lessons, field trips, and more… But even at home, under parental supervision, children often suffer injuries that are difficult to prevent. And if we, as parents, occasionally fail in our task of supervising two or three children, how can we criticize a teacher who is expected to watch over thirty to forty students at once? In this information sheet, we will explore the boundaries of tort liability imposed on educational institutions, and examine in which cases teachers or kindergarten staff may be found negligent while supervising children entrusted to their care. We will also look into the allocation of liability between municipalities and the Ministry of Education in certain scenarios. From among hundreds of court rulings on the subject, we have selected a handful of examples that relate to a wide range of educational activities.

A. Court Rulings in Which the Educational Institution Was Found Liable

Physical Education Class – During a gymnastics class, a student lost her balance while performing a vault over a "horse" (vaulting box), fell, and was injured. The court ruled that vaulting exercises require supervision and instruction from the teacher, and are inherently risky, both due to the nature of the exercise and the age of the students. The greater the risk, the higher the required level of supervision. During a physical education class involving obstacle jumps, a significantly higher degree of supervision is required than, for example, during classroom activities. The teacher failed to provide a proper springboard and an appropriate thick mat, did not warn the student of the risks involved in the jump, did not instruct her, and did not stand beside the vault to supervise her during the exercise. Accordingly, the school was held liable. {C.C. (Be'er Sheva) 151/90 Vered Mesilati et al. v. Rachel Dreier et al. (Takdin–District 96(4), 18)}

Accident During Recess in the Schoolyard – An 8-year-old student fell from a tree he had climbed during recess in the schoolyard. The court found the school liable, due to the absence of teacher supervision in the yard. It ruled that a verbal warning alone was insufficient—children of this age require actual supervision, not just instructions not to climb the tree. When dealing with 8-year-olds, a warning must be accompanied by active oversight. {C.A. 310/89 Cohen v. Lantos et al. (P.D. 46(1), 402)}

Student Injured During Recess A fourth-grade student was beaten by other students. The court held the school liable, as no teacher was present in the yard, and there was no supervision over the students' well-being. While a teacher supervising the schoolyard cannot prevent every injury resulting from games or playful behavior, they can prevent intentional confrontations between students. The mere presence of an adult in the yard where children are gathered serves as a deterrent to violent behavior. {C.C. (Jerusalem) 16/93 Moshe Mashita v. Ministry of Education (Unpublished; cited in Legal Review No. 173)}

Accident in the Schoolyard Outside of School Hours – A 12-year-old boy was playing soccer in the schoolyard at around 4:00 PM. At some point, he climbed onto a canopy, approximately 4 meters high, which was part of the school building. While tossing a ball back and forth with his friends—he on the canopy, they on the ground—he fell and was injured. The court held that the municipality bore full responsibility. The school building was owned and maintained by the municipality, and it was negligent in failing to take steps to prevent children from climbing onto the canopy, a risk it could and should have foreseen. As for the Ministry of Education, the court stated that while there is no dispute that teachers owe a duty of care to students, including during recess, this duty does not extend beyond school hours or outside the school framework, nor does it apply to children who are not enrolled at the school. Moreover, the use of the schoolyard as a public playground was a municipal decision, not an initiative of the school itself. {C.A. (Haifa) 4514/97 Oz Arad v. Ministry of Education et al. (Unpublished)}

Injury to Students During a School Trip – The plaintiff participated in a school-organized field trip. While walking through Nahal Tzalmon, she slipped and fell. The court held the municipal council—the employer of the school principal and teachers—liable. The teachers breached their duty of care, among other things, by merely giving certain instructions to the students and failing to ensure their proper implementation. For example, regarding the choice of appropriate footwear for hiking. The Ministry of Education was also held liable. It had issued Circular G (1989) titled “Field Trips in the Education System”. Although the circular was comprehensive, detailed, and clear, the Ministry did not ensure its implementation by school administrators and teachers. Liability was apportioned as follows: 70% to the municipal council 30% to the Ministry of Education The plaintiff was assigned 15% contributory negligence for not wearing hiking shoes. {C.C. (Haifa) 511/92 Ganaim Rahab v. Sakhnin Local Council et al. (Unpublished)}

Violence in Educational Institutions – During a summer camp organized by the Petah Tikva Municipality, approximately 100 students from a high-risk area participated. The municipality appointed 8 to 10 counselors. A 10-year-old boy was beaten by another student and sustained injuries. The 16-year-old counselor was unable to separate the children, and several minutes passed until older counselors arrived and broke up the fight. The municipality was held liable. The level of supervision required for children during school hours, whether in class or at play, is not equivalent to the level of supervision required in a summer camp setting. In a summer camp serving a student population known to require firm control to prevent danger, it is reasonable to expect that the staff in charge of maintaining order and preventing disorderly conduct be capable of fulfilling that role. {C.A. 585/80 Petah Tikva Municipality v. Tzarfati et al. (P.D. 38(3), 39)}

Accident in a Kindergarten – A 3.5-year-old girl was injured when another child stood on a bench, lost her balance, and the bench tipped forward and fell on the plaintiff’s head. The kindergarten teacher and assistant, who were present at the time, examined the plaintiff but found no visible signs of injury. The child continued playing in the kindergarten for about three more hours, until her mother arrived to pick her up. The staff informed the mother about the blow to the head, stating it had likely passed. Only later, when the girl’s condition worsened, did her mother take her to the hospital, where it was found that she had suffered a serious brain injury. The District Court held that even though the activity in the kindergarten was ordinary, and the level of supervision was reasonable, there was negligence in allowing the use of the bench without first checking its stability. The court also found serious negligence in the Ministry of Education’s guidelines, which were outdated and not formulated clearly enough to require medical referral for any head injury, regardless of severity. Liability was apportioned as follows: 40% to the municipality, as the owner of the bench 60% to the Ministry of Education, due to its regulatory failures {C.C. (Haifa) 10319/96 Dvora v. Kiryat Ata Municipality et al. (Unpublished; cited in Legal Review No. 300)}

B. Court Rulings in Which the Educational Institution Was Not Found Liable 

* Injury in the Classroom A first-grade student took another child's pencil. The injured student asked for it back, and when the other refused, he snatched it forcefully, thereby injuring his own eye in the process. The court ruled that a teacher's duty of care toward a student is akin to that of a parent toward their child. Whether that duty was breached depends on the circumstances—the younger the child, the greater the required level of supervision. Moreover, children seated in class are not subject to the same risks as those playing outside. The court also noted that according to the Compulsory Education and State Education (Registration) Regulations, the maximum class size is 50 students. Although an agreement between the Ministry of Education and the Teachers’ Union set the standard at 40 students, the presence of 45 students on the day of the incident did not constitute a violation. Furthermore, it was not proven that a smaller class size would have prevented the accident. As no negligence was found on the part of the teacher—who was walking among the students in the classroom—the claim was dismissed. {C.A. 324/77 Abdel Hakim Muhammad Rabie v. Samra et al. (P.D. 32(2), 446)}

* Student Injury During a Physical Education Class A ninth-grade student participated in a soccer game held during a physical education class at school. During the game, he jumped toward the basketball hoop, attempting to dunk the ball, lost his balance, and fell. The court ruled that a 15-year-old attempting a basketball dunk is not an inherently dangerous act that a reasonable and prudent teacher would be expected to prevent—especially given that the plaintiff was a basketball player. This was considered a normal risk inherent in sports activities. Even if there was any risk involved, the act was spontaneous and sudden, and the teacher could not have been expected to foresee it. The claim was dismissed. {C.A. 773/89 Barda v. ORT Israel et al. (Takdin–Supreme Court 92(4), 391)}

* Student Injury During Recess A 12th-grade student fell in the schoolyard after being pushed by another student. The claim of teacher liability was dismissed. The court held that the duty of supervision in this case was less stringent than that required for younger students during recess. Even if the plaintiff had proven that no supervision was present in the yard, he failed to show that the presence of a teacher could have prevented the accident. As the court noted, a teacher—like a parent—cannot prevent a sudden, spontaneous act such as a push. {C.C. (Haifa) 5580/94 Khayal Ahsan v. Bironi High School et al. (Unpublished)}

* Injury to a Student During a School Trip While descending Mount Arbel, the plaintiff stumbled on a rock, fell, and was injured. The trip was organized by the school, with the assistance of a tour company. Students were divided into groups of approximately 35 students, each accompanied by a guide, a teacher, and a security guard. The route was considered low in difficulty, suitable even for very young hikers, though not entirely free of rocks or uneven terrain. Toward the end of the hike, a number of students—including the plaintiff—spontaneously began running toward the nearby bus parking lot. The court ruled that the presence of rocks on the trail did not constitute grounds for liability on the part of the defendants. These were 11th-grade students, not young children, and they had received proper safety instructions. It was reasonable to expect them to recognize obstacles such as rocks and avoid tripping. Such incidents cannot be fully prevented, and under these circumstances, no teacher negligence was found. {C.C. (Tel Aviv) 256/95 Guzman Efrat v. State of Israel – Ministry of Education et al. (Unpublished; cited in Legal Review No. 286)}

* Violence in the School Environment A teacher’s aide working at a school for students with behavioral difficulties was injured by a chair thrown by one student at another, which accidentally struck her. There were 8 students in the classroom. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim. It was not proven that students with behavioral difficulties were inherently violent, nor that the specific student involved had a history of violence. It was also not shown that the class size was excessive or dangerous, or that the presence of an additional teacher would have prevented the accident. The claim that the chairs should have been bolted to the floor was rejected as well. The court held that accepting such an argument would lead to absurd conclusions, since there will always be other objects that students could potentially throw. {C.A. 868/79 Atara Kobi v. Ziv et al. (P.D. 36(1), 63)}

* Injury in a Kindergarten A young girl playing in the kindergarten playground fell from a swing and was injured. The court held that the Ministry of Education, as the defendant, bears an elevated duty of care toward the child, and that the municipality also bears responsibility for the maintenance and safety of structures within its jurisdiction. However, in this case, the plaintiff fell while playing, and there was no indication that the swing was defective or non-compliant, nor that there was a lack of supervision. At the time of the incident, both the kindergarten teacher and assistant were present in the yard, and the fall from the swing was unavoidable. The plaintiff was using a swing appropriate for her age, and the defendants did not breach their duty of care. Therefore, the claim was dismissed. {C.C. (Nazareth) 1810/94 Mahajneh Nasrin Abu Shakra v. Ministry of Education et al. (Takdin–Magistrate 996(3), 700)}

Conclusion
We have reviewed a small selection of court rulings regarding the liability of educational institutions for student injuries. The experts at the Forum of Experts are highly knowledgeable in relevant regulations, standards, and safety directives, and can provide you with expert opinions tailored to your case or advise you on the feasibility and risk assessment of a claim. We have carefully selected the most experienced and professional engineers and safety specialists across various areas of tort law. We would be happy to collaborate with you on any tort-related matter, assisting in selecting the most appropriate expert for your case and in preparing a thoroughly reasoned and professional opinion.

The information was prepared by Attorney Yael Pal-Hazan.