A, DC v Prince Alfred College Inc

This case involved an appeal by the plaintiff, DCA, against a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia that dismissed his claim for damages for personal injury. DCA, a former boarder at Prince Alfred College, alleged that the school was liable for sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of Dean Rollo Bain, a boarding house master employed by the college in 1962. The school denied negligence and vicarious liability, and also argued that the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred.

The legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia were whether the trial judge erred in finding that Prince Alfred College was not liable for the abuse suffered by the plaintiff, and whether the trial judge correctly refused to extend the time for the plaintiff to bring his proceedings under the Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA). The appeal court was required to conduct a real review of the trial judge's findings, weighing the evidence and drawing its own inferences and conclusions, while acknowledging the advantages the trial judge had in assessing witness credibility.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, entering judgment for the appellant and remitting the matter for an assessment of damages. The court found that the trial judge had erred in her assessment of liability. The court applied principles of negligence and vicarious liability, considering the school's duty of care to its boarders and the extent to which Bain's actions were within the scope of his employment. The court also considered the evidence regarding the understanding of child abuse and the need for early intervention in the 1960s, finding that the plaintiff's claim was not defeated by a lack of contemporary understanding of these matters.