Mullin v Richards
A child is judged by the standard of an ordinarily careful and reasonable child of the same age, not by the standard of an adult.
Facts
Two 15 year old schoolgirls were fencing with plastic rulers during a lesson, as a game, when one of the rulers snapped and a fragment of plastic entered one girl's eye, causing her to lose the sight in it. She sued the other girl and the education authority.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that neither defendant was liable. Hutchison LJ said that the question was whether an ordinarily prudent and reasonable 15 year old schoolgirl in the defendant's situation would have realised that her actions gave rise to a risk of injury. The game was common, and the girls had never been told that it was dangerous, so the risk of injury was not reasonably foreseeable to a girl of that age. A child's conduct is judged objectively by reference to a child of the same age.
Related cases on breach of duty
- Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781
- Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
- Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232
- Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
- Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 333
- Dunnage v Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673, [2016] QB 639
- Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] AC 448
- Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
