## 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.


Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 All ER 920