“Children judged by standard of reasonable child, not adult.”
Two 15-year-old schoolgirls were play-fighting with plastic rulers when one ruler snapped and a fragment entered one girl's eye, causing serious injury. The injured girl sued her friend in negligence.
What standard of care should be applied to determine whether a child has been negligent, and whether normal childhood activities can constitute a breach of duty.
The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant's appeal, finding no negligence. Children should be judged by the standard of a reasonable child of the same age engaging in the same activity.
Established the clear principle for child defendants in negligence, balancing accountability with recognition of children's developmental limitations. Important for understanding the objective standard of care in tort law.
You're reading the free summary of Mullin v Richards. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304 (CA)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.