Mullin v Richards [1998]
Share
Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304 deals with the issue of negligence, specifically in the context of children and the standard of care owed by them.
The defendant, a 15-year-old girl, engaged in play-fighting with rulers with another 15-year-old girl (the claimant). During the game, the defendant's ruler snapped, causing a splinter to hit the claimant in the eye and resulting in blindness. The claimant brought a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging negligence and seeking compensation for her injuries.
The central issue in the case was whether the defendant's age should be considered when determining the standard of care owed in a negligence claim. Negligence requires establishing that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused recoverable harm to the claimant. The standard for determining breach of duty is typically that of a reasonable person in the defendant's position, but there are exceptions to this rule.
The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was not in breach of the duty of care owed to the claimant. The key principle established by this case is that a child's age is relevant to the standard of care expected of them. A child is held to the standard of a reasonable child of the same age, rather than the standard of a reasonable adult. In this case, the court found that a reasonable 15-year-old would not have foreseen any injury arising from the play-fighting game with rulers and, therefore, would not have taken additional steps to prevent harm.
As the defendant acted in a manner consistent with the behaviour of a reasonable child of the same age, the court concluded that she was not in breach of the duty of care. This case, therefore, contributes to the understanding that the standard of care for children in negligence cases is different from that of adults, taking into account the age and characteristics of the child in question.
The defendant, a 15-year-old girl, engaged in play-fighting with rulers with another 15-year-old girl (the claimant). During the game, the defendant's ruler snapped, causing a splinter to hit the claimant in the eye and resulting in blindness. The claimant brought a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging negligence and seeking compensation for her injuries.
The central issue in the case was whether the defendant's age should be considered when determining the standard of care owed in a negligence claim. Negligence requires establishing that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused recoverable harm to the claimant. The standard for determining breach of duty is typically that of a reasonable person in the defendant's position, but there are exceptions to this rule.
The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was not in breach of the duty of care owed to the claimant. The key principle established by this case is that a child's age is relevant to the standard of care expected of them. A child is held to the standard of a reasonable child of the same age, rather than the standard of a reasonable adult. In this case, the court found that a reasonable 15-year-old would not have foreseen any injury arising from the play-fighting game with rulers and, therefore, would not have taken additional steps to prevent harm.
As the defendant acted in a manner consistent with the behaviour of a reasonable child of the same age, the court concluded that she was not in breach of the duty of care. This case, therefore, contributes to the understanding that the standard of care for children in negligence cases is different from that of adults, taking into account the age and characteristics of the child in question.
