Woman sues preschool for negligence after son was pushed off indoor slide by another student

Woman sues preschool for negligence after son was pushed off indoor slide by another student The boy's parents broke down in tears in court as they watched a video clip of their son clutching his hand and running towards the teachers after he fell. SINGAPORE: A woman is suing her son's preschool for negligence after he was pushed off a 75cm-high indoor slide by another student during playtime, leaving him injured. She claimed that the teachers who were present at the preschool play area did not notice several incidents between her son and another boy because they were on their mobile phones or chatting. The trial opened in the State Courts on Monday (Sep 7), with the woman claiming that there were no safety mats laid out under the slide at the time of the incident. The woman is seeking an unspecified amount in damages. She is represented by Mr Goh Choon Wah and Mr Mitchell Leon from Characterist LLC. A gag order has been imposed to prevent the publication of the identities of the woman and her child, as well as the preschool's name and address. The court heard that the child is currently six years old and that the woman has another son who is nine years old. The woman's age was not revealed in open court, although she appeared to be in her 30s. She presented four video clips of the incident that occurred on Jul 12, 2024. In the first, she pointed to a girl who was standing at the top of the slide and claimed that the girl was unsupervised by the teachers who were seated further away. She said it would have been dangerous if the girl had fallen as there was no safety mat below. In another clip, a different student hit her head on the wall while playing behind the teachers, but they "were really distracted, both looking at their phones at the same time", the woman said. It was only after the girl cried loudly that the teachers noticed what had happened, the woman claimed. The rest of the videos showed her son's interactions with the boy involved in the incident, including a head-on collision. The woman said her son could be heard saying "pain, pain" afterwards and the teachers were "completely unaware" that such an incident had happened. The other boy pushed her son off the slide twice, she said. After the first time, her son fell to the ground but got back up. When he tried to climb the slide again, the other boy, who was already sitting at the top, pushed him off. This time, the woman's son fell from the top step. He used his hand to break his fall and "narrowly missed" a tricycle that another student was riding in the same area. After that, he ran to the teachers, showing them his hand. He was injured in the fall, although the extent of his injuries was not mentioned in court. The woman and her husband broke down in tears in court as they watched the clip of their son. The boy's father covered his eyes as he wept while the video continued playing. After composing herself, the woman told the court that she had created notes marking key moments in the video clips. "I wanted to have a sense of the overall supervision of the play from the start to the end. I wanted to put things into perspective on when there was supervision and when there was not," she said. She claimed that these notes were not included in the preschool's submission. "I'm not asking for the school to catch every incident or be (an) insurer of any interaction between the children," she said, adding that, as an educator herself, she knew teachers had limits. But she said it was "reasonable to expect that teachers will be looking out for dangers" in high-risk areas such as the slide and questioned the lack of mats. In court documents obtained by CNA, the woman said photos of the preschool play area from 2017 showed shock-absorbent mats around the slide, but these were not laid out on the day of the incident. DEFENCE QUESTIONS WOMAN The preschool was represented by Mr Ling Vey Hong from Foxwood LLC. At the start of his cross-examination, he told the woman that he was a parent himself and was sorry that her son had been injured. He then asked about her use of the phrase "no effective supervision" in her affidavit to describe the teachers' behaviour, questioning what she meant by that and whether she was referring to regulations by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA). Mr Ling asked whether the regulations differentiated between supervision and effective supervision and questioned the claimant's understanding of the rules. He also asked if she considered herself a careful parent, to which she said: "I find it very hard to say yes or no. I do the best I can." He pointed to photos of her son regularly sent to her by the preschool and asked if she had noticed any safety mats in them. The woman replied that she only focused on her son's face to make sure he was doing well. "We don't look at the surroundings. I trust that there will be safe play around the area," said the woman. In turn, Mr Ling said: "You're saying you didn't notice the mats? Even though you're a careful parent?" The woman repeated that she did not say anything about the surrounding area as she trusted the school. She also claimed that no teachers were positioned near the slide when they should have been there. Another point of contention between Mr Ling and the woman concerned her email correspondence with ECDA. The woman said she wanted the agency to interview her and her husband about what had happened to their son, but they were not given the chance to do so. When Mr Ling asked if she had insisted on being interviewed, the woman said she could not remember the exact conversation with the agency but that she was told the priority at that time was to interview the teachers involved. The trial continues at the State Courts.