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

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.