Orchard v Lee [2009] EWCA Civ 295
NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – CHILDREN
Facts
The claimant was a school dinner lady acting as a supervisor in a children’s playground. She sustained injuries when a 13-year-old boy ran backwards into her while playing a game of tag. She sued the boy in negligence.
Issue
Establishing negligence involves showing that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, which they breached in a manner that caused the claimant recoverable harm. It was not disputed that the boy owed the supervisor a duty. However, to establish a breach, the claimant must establish that the defendant failed to act as a reasonable person would in their position.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
The issue was whether the boy had breached his duty of care, and the relevance of his age.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal dismissed the supervisor’s appeal. It held that the boy had not breached his duty of care.
Mullin v Richards was cited as authority for the proposition that a child is only held to the standard of a reasonable child of his age rather than a reasonable adult. As such, the Court of Appeal noted, the court assessed his conduct in the context of ordinary playground play.
The requisite level of carelessness will not be found where, as was the case here, the child is playing a game in a playground, not breaking the rules of that game, and not behaving in a manner which is significantly outside of the norms of a game of that nature played by 13-year-olds.
A reasonable 13-year-old in the same circumstances would not have anticipated a sufficient likelihood of significant injury. The court therefore held that the boy’s conduct fell within the standard of care expected of him.
