What began as a fun and exciting primary school athletics trial culminated in a serious injury to one of the participants that lead to a Supreme Court compensation battle over more than 5 years.
The Incident
In July 2019, 11-year-old Addison Stanberg participated in a long jump competition at Neutral Bay Public School in Sydney. Having completed several jumps without incident, his fifth or sixth attempt ended in a catastrophic landing with his feet striking a hard surface beneath the sand.
He fell backwards having sustained a major spinal injury with permanent damage to the L4/5 disc and ongoing back pain. The incident transformed what should have been an enjoyable school sporting event into a life-changing moment for the young student.
The Legal Claim
His negligence claim against the State of New South Wales – which was responsible for the school’s operation – alleged it had failed to ensure that the long jump pit was safely maintained. The claim centered on two critical safety failures:
- Insufficient sand depth in the landing pit
- Irregular and infrequent raking that created an unreasonable risk of injury for a sport accident to occur
The evidence showed that between 30 to 50 other students had jumped earlier in the competition, with the sand being raked only after every second or third jump. This practice was later found to be contrary to Little Athletics Australia safety guidelines.
Initial Court Decision
At first instance, the District Court dismissed Stanberg’s claim. Judge Robert Newlinds found that the school had taken sufficient precautions by replenishing the sand earlier in the season, having teachers supervise the event, and directing that the sand be raked after every second or third jump.
The judge placed considerable reliance on the evidence of two supervising teachers who, despite vague and largely reconstructed recollections, expressed their views that the sand appeared adequate on the day. Additionally, he accepted the State’s assertion that the pit was supplemented by ‘Softfall’ material at its base, providing additional safety.
Supreme Court Appeal Decision
The appeal proved successful. Justice John Griffiths, in delivering the lead judgment, identified several critical errors in the trial judge’s reasoning that warranted overturning the initial decision.
No Evidence of Softfall Material
There was no reliable evidence supporting the trial judge’s finding that ‘Softfall’ material lined the base of the pit, the appeal judges concluded. The evidence about Softfall was only that it had surrounded the edges of the pit. Justice Griffiths determined that this factual error was material and had influenced the primary judge’s ultimate finding, leading him into error.
Unreliable Teacher Testimony
He also accepted Stanberg’s contention that the trial judge had given undue weight to the supervising teachers’ vague and speculative recollections. Their evidence, given nearly five years post-incident, lacked precision and was inherently defensive given their supervisory roles.
Student’s Unchallenged Account
Justice Griffith noted the student’s unchallenged testimony describing the sport accident and his feet striking a hard surface as he was injured strongly suggested inadequate sand depth at the landing point. That conclusion was ever more compelling when considered in the context of 30 to 50 other students having jumped earlier, with raking occurring only after every second or third jump.
Breach of Duty of Care
The appeal court concluded that ensuring sufficient sand depth and raking after each jump were low-burden precautions that ought reasonably to have been taken. The risk of injury was foreseeable and preventable, making the school’s failure to maintain these standards a breach of its duty to the student.
Damages Assessment
Turning to damages, the trial judge had awarded Stanberg only 20% of the most extreme case for general damages and dismissed his claim for future economic loss. The appeal judges on the other hand ruled that his chronic spinal condition would likely have ongoing financial repercussions.
They adjusted the award, ultimately ordering the State to pay $276,500 plus interest and costs in compensation for the permanent spinal injury and its ongoing impact on Addison’s life and future earning capacity.
Key Takeaways
This case demonstrates several important principles in school and sport injury law:
- Schools have a duty to maintain safe sporting facilities and follow industry safety guidelines
- Low-burden safety precautions must be implemented when risks are foreseeable
- Teacher testimony given years after an incident may be treated cautiously without contemporaneous records
- Factual errors in assessing safety measures can be material to the outcome of negligence claims
- Chronic injuries in young people warrant consideration of long-term economic impacts
Stanberg v State of New South Wales – [2025] NSWCA 127
Mitchelmore JA, McHugh JA, Griffiths AJA, 6 June 2025