Orchard v Lee [2009] EWCA Civ 295

Facts

• The case concerned a 13-year-old boy (defendant) playing tag in a school playground.
• During the game, the boy ran backwards and collided with the claimant, a school dinner lady supervising the children, causing her injury.
• The claimant brought an action for negligence against the child.
• Central to the claim was the evaluation of whether the boy’s conduct during the game constituted a breach of his duty of care towards the supervisor.
• The court considered whether running backwards while playing tag was unreasonable conduct for a child of that age.
• It was not disputed that the boy owed a duty of care to the claimant.

Issues

1. Whether the standard of care for negligence claims involving children differs from that for adults.
2. Whether the defendant’s actions in the course of playing a game amounted to a breach of the duty of care owed to the claimant.
3. Whether running backwards during a game of tag by a 13-year-old constitutes conduct that falls outside the norm for children of that age.
4. Whether the injury sustained by the claimant was the result of actionable negligence or an accident not amounting to breach.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal held in favour of the defendant, concluding that there was no breach of duty of care.
• The court found that the child’s conduct—running backwards while playing tag—fell within the boundaries of expected behaviour for a 13-year-old.
• The injury alone did not establish negligence; the boy’s actions did not amount to unreasonable or careless conduct for a child of his age.
• The required level of carelessness to find a child liable for negligence is significantly higher than for adults, and this threshold was not met.
• The court affirmed that child defendants are assessed according to the standard of a reasonable child of their age and understanding, referencing the principle established in Mullin v Richards.

Legal Principles

• In negligence, the standard of care for defendants who are children is that of a reasonable child of the same age, not that of an adult.
• The required level of carelessness for finding a child liable is higher; only conduct that significantly departs from what is expected of a child of that age justifies liability.
• Not all accidents resulting in injury amount to a breach of duty—liability arises only if the child’s actions fall well below reasonable expectations for their age.
• Developmental differences are recognized in law, and the context of the child’s activities is central when evaluating negligence.

Conclusion

Orchard v Lee confirms that children are not held to adult standards in negligence and liability only arises if their behaviour falls far below the expected conduct of children their age. The case clarifies the approach to assessing breach of duty where the defendant is a minor, ensuring the law reflects the developmental differences of childhood.