Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 All ER 920

Facts

  • Two 15-year-old schoolgirls engaged in a mock sword fight with plastic rulers at school.
  • During the play, a ruler broke and a fragment struck one of the girls (the claimant) in the eye, resulting in blindness in that eye.
  • The injured girl brought a negligence claim against the other (the defendant).
  • The court needed to decide whether the defendant had breached her duty of care, considering the natural risk of the play and the defendant’s age.

Issues

  1. What is the appropriate standard of care to apply to a child defendant in negligence?
  2. Whether a reasonable 15-year-old would have foreseen the risk of injury from the conduct in question.
  3. Whether the defendant breached her duty of care given her age and understanding.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that the standard of care for a child defendant is that of a reasonable child of the same age and background, not that of a reasonable adult.
  • It found that a reasonable 15-year-old girl would not have foreseen a risk of serious injury resulting from mock sword fighting with plastic rulers.
  • Therefore, the defendant had not breached her duty of care and was not liable for negligence.

Legal Principles

  • The general objective standard in negligence is that of the “reasonable person,” but this standard is modified for children.
  • For child defendants, the test is what a reasonable child of the same age and background would have foreseen and done in the circumstances.
  • Foreseeability of risk must be judged from the viewpoint of a reasonable child, not an adult, recognizing differences in cognitive capacity and risk appreciation.
  • The standard for children is distinct from the “professional” standard applied to trained professionals (as in the Bolam test).
  • Consideration of social and private costs, and balancing of risks, has reduced relevance in the case of children due to their limited ability to foresee risks.

Conclusion

Mullin v Richards established that the standard of care in negligence for child defendants is that of a reasonable child of the same age and circumstances, not an adult. This case clarified the law by distinguishing the capacity of children to foresee risks and contributed significantly to the approach courts take when assessing negligence by minors.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal