In the 1990s there was trend of increasing litigation sued by pupil or parent as plaintiff against the local authority or school governing body as defendant, claiming negligent liability which caused damage to the child. This article considers negligent liability on education, especially vicarious liability of local authority, which is legal liability imposed on the local authority for breach of duty by person employed by the local authority. The law case of Phelps v. London Borough of Hillingdon is regarded important in a sense that the House of Lords as the Supreme Court judged the vicarious liability to the local authority, which is never seen before. This article compares two law cases, X v. Bedfordshire County Council and Phelps v. London Borough of Hillingdon, in which both plaintiffs claimed negligent liability due to breach of duties in the treatment of abused children by the local authority and diagnosis for child suffering from dyslexia by a school psychologist employed by the local authority, respectively. Although common points in legal proceeding of the two law cases is exercise of discretion by the local authorities, the judgments of these two trials at the Supreme Court are contrastive, because the appeal was struck out in the X v. Bedfordshire case, but in the Phelps v. Hillingdon case the Court judged direct liability to the school psychologist and vicarious liability to the local authority. Organization of this paper is delineated; first, the judgments at the Supreme Court for the X v. Bedfordshire case and the Phelps v. Hillingdon case are outlined. Second, this article confirms general concept about the duty of the statute and the common law duty of care by the Opinions for the Lords of Appeal for Judgment. Third, this article scrutinizes logic of the judgments in the X v. Bedfordshire case and the Phelps v. Hillingdon case, from viewpoints of the statute, common law and vicarious liability. Fourth, this article analyzes logic of the judgments in these two law cases. Finally, this article comments on the education trial in Japan from viewpoint of the vicarious liability.
