Abu Dhabi: The Court of Misdemeanours saw a dispute arising over who is to blame for the death of former Al Worood Academy Private School student, Nizaha Ala’a, who died in her school bus last year after being left behind in it.
Lawyers of the five defendants — the bus driver, bus attendant, supervisor, school’s president and owner of the transport company who owns the buses — all blamed one another for the negligence that led to the child’s death.
The four year-old kindergarten student died last year when she was left in her bus after being picked up from her Khalidiya area home. She died from heat exhaustion and was found to have internal head injuries as a result of banging her head on a solid object, thought to be the skeleton of the bus. She was left behind by the school bus driver for around four hours after the bus’ arrival at the school. The bus attendant had admitted to prosecutors earlier that she had failed to walk to the back of the bus to check for any students that may have been left behind before asking the driver to lock up the bus.
During the court session, the defence team for the Indian transport company owner, R.A., insisted on their client’s innocence, adding that all the buses owned by R.A. followed regulations and were licensed by the Traffic and Licensing Department at Abu Dhabi Police. He also stated that the Abu Dhabi Education Council (Adec) does not have in place a system for school buses, adding that it is the responsibility of the Department of Transport (DoT) which had, in fact, issued a set of specifications for school transport.
Meanwhile, Filipina F.A., who is contracted by the school as a cleaner, had previously stated that she was opposed to working as a bus attendant.
Her lawyer, therefore, argued that as the school had resorted to money-saving techniques by hiring a cleaning staff to take on additional responsibilities in an area she is not trained for, it was the school’s responsibility. In fact, when asked by the judge for her opinion on working as a bus attendant, F.A. explained that she had refused to take on the responsibility at first and had requested the school to adhere to its contractual agreement with her. However, upon the school’s insistence, F.A. eventually agreed to take on the role.
The lawyer for the third and fourth defendants, the Lebanese supervisor, L.A., and the school’s South African principal, A.A., begged to differ. He stated that F.A. is a graduate who is familiar with the duties of a bus attendant and that she had frequently accompanied students on board buses. The lawyer used the same argument at the previous hearing that on the day of the tragic incident over a 1,000 students were absent from school and that it would take approximately 17 hours to call each of their parents to inform them of their child’s absence. He also claimed that there is no law that mandates the school to call parents of absent students.
Lastly, the bus driver’s lawyer reminded the court that his client was not responsible for keeping a watch on the students on board the bus. His duties, the lawyer said, were strictly limited to driving the students to and from school. The driver had previously stated that he was prohibited from making contact with the students and that the job of ensuring the bus was empty was that of the bus attendant.
The verdict will be delivered on May 11.
