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.

A close-up view of the State Courts building. (File photo: CNA/Ili Mansor)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

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.

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

男孩的父母在法庭上看到儿子摔倒后紧紧抓住自己的手跑向老师的视频片段时，不禁潸然泪下。

国家法院大楼近景。（资料照片：CNA/Ili Mansor）

这段音频由人工智能工具生成。

新加坡：一名女子起诉其儿子的幼儿园疏忽大意，因为她的儿子在课间玩耍时被另一名学生从75厘米高的室内滑梯上推下，导致受伤。

她声称，在幼儿园游戏区工作的老师们没有注意到她儿子和另一个男孩之间发生的几起事件，因为他们当时都在玩手机或聊天。

审判于周一（9 月 7 日）在州法院开庭，该女子声称事发时滑梯下没有铺设安全垫。

该女子要求赔偿金额不详。她的代理律师是Characterist LLC律师事务所的吴俊华先生和米切尔·里昂先生。

已下达禁言令，禁止公布该女子及其孩子的身份，以及幼儿园的名称和地址。

法庭获悉，这名儿童现年六岁，该女子还有另一个九岁的儿子。庭审中并未透露该女子的年龄，但她看起来像是三十多岁。

她播放了 2024 年 7 月 12 日发生的这起事件的四段视频片段。在第一段视频中，她指着站在滑梯顶端的一名女孩，声称坐在远处的老师们没有对这名女孩进行监管。

她说，如果女孩摔下去会很危险，因为下面没有安全垫。

在另一段视频中，一名学生在老师身后玩耍时撞到了墙，但这位女士说，老师们“当时真的很分心，两人同时都在看手机”。

该女子称，直到女孩大声哭喊之后，老师们才注意到发生了什么事。

其余视频显示了她儿子与涉事男孩的互动，包括一次正面碰撞。这位母亲说，事后可以听到她儿子说“疼，疼”，而老师们对此事“完全不知情”。

她说，另一个男孩两次把她儿子从滑梯上推下去。第一次之后，她儿子摔倒在地，但又爬了起来。当他再次试图爬上滑梯时，已经坐在顶端的那个男孩又把他推了下去。

这一次，是这位母亲的儿子从最上面的台阶上摔了下来。

他用手撑地，险些撞到另一名学生在同一区域骑的三轮车。之后，他跑到老师面前，向他们展示了他的手。他摔倒受伤，但法庭上并未提及伤势的严重程度。

法庭上，当这对夫妇观看儿子的视频片段时，两人都崩溃痛哭。视频继续播放时，男孩的父亲捂着眼睛哭泣。

平复情绪后，这名女子告诉法庭，她已在视频片段中标记了关键时刻。“我想了解整部剧从头到尾的整体监制情况。我想弄清楚什么时候有监制，什么时候没有监制，”她说。

她声称这些记录并未包含在幼儿园提交的文件中。“我并不是要求学校记录下每一件事，也不是要求学校为孩子们之间的任何互动提供保障，”她说道，并补充说，作为一名教育工作者，她知道教师的职责范围是有限的。

但她表示，在滑梯等高风险区域，“理应期望教师们注意危险”，并质疑为何没有垫子。

据 CNA 获得的法庭文件显示，该女子称，2017 年幼儿园游乐区的照片显示滑梯周围铺有减震垫，但事发当天并没有铺上这些垫子。

辩方质问女子

幼儿园的代理律师是来自Foxwood LLC的凌伟鸿先生。在交叉询问开始时，他告诉这位女士，他自己也是一位家长，对她的儿子受伤表示遗憾。

然后，他询问她在宣誓书中用“没有有效监管”来描述教师的行为，质疑她这句话的意思，以及她是否指的是幼儿发展署（ECDA）的规定。

凌先生询问相关规定是否区分了监督和有效监督，并质疑申诉人对规则的理解。

他还问她是否认为自己是一位尽职尽责的家长，她回答说：“我很难回答是或否。我尽力而为。”

他指着幼儿园定期发给她的儿子照片，问她是否注意到照片里有安全垫。这位女士回答说，她只关注儿子的脸，确保他一切安好。

“我们不关注周围环境。我相信这附近区域会很安全，”这位女士说。

凌先生反问道：“你是说你没注意到那些垫子？即使你是一位细心的家长？” 这位女士重申，她没有提及周围环境的情况，因为她信任学校。

她还声称，本应有老师在滑梯附近执勤的时候，却没有老师在那里。

凌先生与该女子之间的另一个争议点在于她与幼儿培育署的电子邮件往来。该女子表示，她希望该机构就其子遭遇的情况对她和她的丈夫进行面谈，但他们没有得到这样的机会。

当凌先生问她是否坚持要接受采访时，这位女士说她记不清与中介机构的确切对话内容，但她被告知当时的首要任务是采访涉事教师。

审判仍在州法院继续进行。

订阅我们的邮件，即可获取精选热点新闻和引人深思的文章。

订阅通知，第一时间获取突发新闻和精彩报道。

加入我们的频道，即可在您常用的聊天应用上获取当日热门文章。