Scout Association v Barnes [2010] EWCA Civ 1476
TORT – NEGLIGENCE – IMPACT OF SOCIAL UTILITY ON THE STANDARD OF CARE
Facts
The claimant was a thirteen-year-old boy scout. His scout troupe organised a game wherein the scouts would run about in a hall in the dark, racing to take a block in the middle. Those who did not get a block would be eliminated from the game. During the game, the claimant was injured after chasing a block that had been accidentally kicked away by another player. The claimant sued the Scout Association in the tort of negligence.
Issue
Establishing the tort of negligence involves establishing that the defendant breached their duty of care to the claimant. To establish breach, the claimant must establish that the defendant failed to act as a reasonable person would in their position. This is known as the standard of care.
Various factors have been held to be relevant to assessing the standard of care, such as the risk and severity of harm, as well as the social value of the defendant’s activities. The issue in this case was the weight to be given to the social value of the Association’s activities.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was liable.
The majority of the Court accepted that the Association’s activities were of great social value, and that their activities will often and properly involve an element of risk to achieve this value. However, the level of risk incurred had to be acceptable and proportionate to the social value.
In this case, playing the game in darkness did not make the activity any more socially valuable than the same game played in the light. As such, it added an extra element of risk which was not outweighed by the social value of the activity.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the Court of Appeal’s decision in Scout Association v Barnes [2010] EWCA Civ 1476. The case remains good law and continues to be cited as an illustration of how social utility is weighed when assessing breach of duty in negligence. The underlying legal principles described — including the relevance of social value, risk, and proportionality to the standard of care — remain consistent with the current approach under English tort law, as reflected in subsequent case law and academic commentary. No statutory changes have materially affected the analysis. Readers should note that the broader framework for assessing breach of duty, including the relevance of social utility, is also informed by section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006, which codifies the principle that courts may have regard to the desirability of not deterring socially valuable activities; the article does not mention this provision, which provides useful statutory context.
