Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co Ltd [1949] AC 386

Facts

  • Peter Yachuk, a nine-year-old boy, suffered severe burns after buying gasoline from the defendant, Oliver Blais Co Ltd, a fuel supplier.
  • Peter falsely stated that the gasoline was for his mother’s car, and the defendant’s employee sold it to him without verifying the purpose.
  • Peter and his friend used the gasoline to start a fire, resulting in an explosion that caused significant injuries to Peter.
  • Peter’s parents sued the defendant for negligence, claiming the company owed a duty of care not to sell gasoline to children due to its dangerous nature.
  • The defendant argued that Peter was contributorily negligent by misrepresenting the purpose for the gasoline and by using it recklessly.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to prevent the sale of gasoline to a child.
  2. Whether Peter’s contributory negligence should reduce or eliminate his claim for damages.
  3. What standard of care applies when assessing a child's contributory negligence.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that the defendant owed a duty of care to prevent the sale of gasoline to children, given the foreseeable risk of harm.
  • The court found the defendant had breached this duty by failing to verify Peter’s claim about the gasoline’s use.
  • The court concluded that Peter’s contributory negligence should be assessed by a standard proportionate to his age and maturity, not as that of an adult.
  • Peter’s damages were reduced by 25% to account for his contributory negligence, rather than barring his claim entirely.

Legal Principles

  • The standard of care for contributory negligence must be proportionate to a child's age, intelligence, and experience.
  • Children cannot be held to the same standard of care as adults, given their limited capacity to understand and avoid risks.
  • Foreseeability of harm and duty of care are central in negligence claims involving minors, especially with dangerous substances.
  • Contributory negligence does not bar a child’s claim outright but may justify a reduction in damages.

Conclusion

The decision in Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co Ltd established that a child's contributory negligence must be measured by their age and maturity, ensuring a balanced and equitable approach to duty of care and liability in negligence claims involving 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