Ratio Decidendi
The standard of care expected of a child defendant is that of a reasonably careful child of the same age, not that of a reasonable adult. The question is whether an ordinarily prudent and reasonable child of that age would have foreseen the risk.
Facts
Two 15-year-old schoolgirls were fencing with plastic rulers during a class. A ruler snapped and a fragment struck one girl in the eye, causing serious injury. The injured girl sued her friend in negligence.
Judgment Summary
The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was not negligent. The test was whether a reasonable 15-year-old would have foreseen the risk. The game was commonplace and neither girl (nor the teacher who saw them) thought there was any danger. The risk of a ruler snapping and causing eye injury was not foreseeable to a reasonable child of that age.
Key Quotes
"The question is not whether the actions of the defendant were such as an ordinarily prudent and reasonable adult would have realised gave rise to a risk of injury, but whether an ordinarily prudent and reasonable 15-year-old schoolgirl would have realised as much."
— Hutchison LJ
Subsequent Treatment
Leading English authority on the standard of care applicable to child defendants.