ACCIDENTS AT SCHOOLS.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 October 1920, Page 4

ACCIDENTS AT SCHOOLS.

.SHOULD BOYS BE INSURED? AN INTERESTING SUGGESTION. Should school boy 3 be insured against accident 1 The question of the insurance of schoolboys against accidents during school hours, has been discussed by various Education Boards of late, the subject having come into prominence as the result of an incident at a southern college, whore a student had been injured in a, laboratory explosion and had received heavy damages from the school board. Tlie proposal was mentioned to headmasters of New Plymouth schools by a Daily News reporter yesterday, and they expressed some measure of support for it One said that he thought any insurance scheme which was evolved would be .only for the covering of accidents for which the school committee might he held responsible, such as throdgh faulty buildings, bad swings, or other appurtenances. ''Personally," he said, "I think it would be a good idea to have some provision of this sort." The speaker added that it could be hardly expected that pupils could have a claim for any injuries received through sports, as they took part in these at their own risk. In any case the mishaps in this instance were also very few. A second headmaster said the accidents' at schools were very few. Personally ho did not think the Board could be expected to incur the financial liability in the matter of taking out a policy to cover the pupils of the"' schools against the risk of accidents. He believed, however, that boys working in laboratories should be insured as no matter how much caro Was exercised there were many risks of mishaps. While in his experience of 20 years he had not encountered any cass of injuries worth speaking of, he knew of instances whore boys had received injuries to eyes-by such' chemicals as sulphuric acid, and also in connection with experimental work generally. Most injuries received at schools were through football or other games, but it would be a big undertaking to insure all the players, and the' Board could not reasonably be asked to d(i so. ■■—-!.