Gorely v Codd [1967] 1 WLR 19 (CA)

Facts

The case concerned an accident involving young people and the handling of a firearm. A 13-year-old boy was injured when another child (aged 16) mishandled a shotgun. The claimant argued that the defendant child had acted negligently in the way he handled the weapon.

The court had to consider whether the defendant’s conduct fell below the required standard of care, taking into account his age and understanding.

---

Issue

How should the standard of care be applied where the defendant is a child engaged in a potentially dangerous activity?

---

Decision

The Court of Appeal applied a modified objective standard. The defendant was to be judged by the standard of a reasonable child of the same age. On the facts, the court examined whether a child of that age should reasonably have appreciated the risk involved in handling a firearm.

---

Legal Principle

Children are not judged by adult standards of foresight and judgment. The correct test is what a reasonable child of the same age would have foreseen and done.

However, where an activity is obviously dangerous (such as handling firearms), the court may expect a higher level of awareness even from a child.

---

Importance

• Reinforces and supports the principle later clarified in Mullin v Richards.

• Demonstrates that the adjusted child standard still requires reasonable appreciation of obvious risks.

• Frequently referenced in discussions of child defendants and dangerous activities.