Orchard v Lee
A 13 year old boy playing tag in a school playground was not liable for injuring a supervisor, because his conduct was not careless or reckless to a high degree.
Facts
Ms Orchard was a lunchtime supervisor at a school. A 13 year old boy was playing tag with a friend in an area of the playground where the game was permitted, running backwards to avoid being caught. He collided with Ms Orchard, who was injured. She sued the boy in negligence.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the boy was not liable. Waller LJ said that a child will only be held liable in negligence if his conduct goes beyond the norm for a child of his age, and that, in the context of children playing games, the conduct must be careless to a very high degree. The boy was playing a game in an area where it was allowed, and he was not breaking any rule or acting in a way that was beyond what could be expected of a child of his 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.
