Other reports mention her falling 15 feet, which implies that this was higher than the 1st floor, in which case there should have been a restrictor device on the casements. This corresponds to the mention of the window being not being limited to 4" opening.
If that is the case, the school is liable
She did fall out so that is a fact - whether its 12" or whatever does not matter if it should only have been 4". The actual circumstances and her actions/contribution to the accident will be assesed, but it still comes back to that duty of care of the school.
The other part of her claim - that there was a "culture of drinking" at the school will probably fail.
But any compensation will be for her care for the rest of her life - and as she is disabled, then that will be considerable
But remember that she was sixteen, a school girl - a child. And children do rash things, and they do require supervision, and the school should provide that supervision .... that extra bit of care.
If that is the case, the school is liable
She did fall out so that is a fact - whether its 12" or whatever does not matter if it should only have been 4". The actual circumstances and her actions/contribution to the accident will be assesed, but it still comes back to that duty of care of the school.
The other part of her claim - that there was a "culture of drinking" at the school will probably fail.
But any compensation will be for her care for the rest of her life - and as she is disabled, then that will be considerable
But remember that she was sixteen, a school girl - a child. And children do rash things, and they do require supervision, and the school should provide that supervision .... that extra bit of care.
