RSA Safety Program Analysis

Introduction
At every school in RSA there are expected to have a safety program that ensures that learners are safe and welcomed. It is the duty of the school and teacher within a school to ensure that the environment is safe for both learners and teacher so that learning could be effective for learners. Safe schools can be said it is a place where learners can learn and teachers can teach effective in a warm and welcoming environment. The safety and well-being of children it is entrusted to the teachers by the parents and the teachers take full responsibility of the learner.
Action
An action is a verb done by a person in any form. The school undertaker performed the act by not removing the sprinkler of the schools rugby field as the learners
Which is called the reasonable person test. It asks the question “How would a reasonable person have acted under the particular circumstances?” in this case the teacher. (Oosthuizen, 2016:126)
Ms Joker the reasonable teacher should have done his duty that is to ensure that the learners are safe and their wellbeing is fine. Ms Joker should have done a proper supervision while the learners were playing in the rugby field. A reasonable teacher the first thing that she should have done is to report the situation of the field to the undertaker and demanded the removal the sprinklers to ensure the learners safety.
Reasonable foreseeability
In this case the damage was foreseeable because Ms Joker did notice that the undertaker did not remove the sprinklers on the field and she was aware that the sprinklers could cause a damage to any learner. As a reasonable teacher could have foreseen that it could cause damage to leave learners alone because learners without an adult is disaster waiting to happen. Ms Joker should have thought before leaving the learners alone without any adult supervision what would happen and used his past experience in teaching then request any teacher for help in supervision while she is absent.
Reasonable preventability
Nature and extent of the
Cost and difficulty
Ms Joker could have informed the undertaker to remove the sprinkler at any cost to avoid difficulty situation later. If the task of removing the sprinklers was difficult Ms Joker could have request help or reported the situation to the undertaker or the headmaster.
Contributory fault
In a situation like this Ms Joker should not be held liable alone but should hold the undertaker responsible too because it negligent its duty too. The teacher also contributed in the damage because Ms Joker negligent to take care of the learners when she was supposed to and to do supervision. The learners could not be held liable in a situation like this or case.
Bheki was in grade 4 which means that he is under the age of 17 which means that they do not have the capacity to act or account and this also means that they cannot be held liable for any damage.

Conclusion
School in South African are governed by laws or code of conduct that there have no choice but to follow it. In schools the teachers and learners are entitle to an environment that is not harmful but a safe one and the right of freedom and security of the person. The safety and well-being of children it is entrusted to the teachers by the parents and the teachers take full responsibility of the