Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304 (CA)

Facts

Two 15-year-old schoolgirls were play-fighting with plastic rulers during a class break. One girl snapped her ruler in a mock sword-fighting motion. A fragment broke off and struck the claimant in the eye, causing serious injury and partial loss of sight.

The claimant argued that the defendant had acted negligently and breached the standard of care expected. The case required the court to determine the appropriate standard of care when the defendant is a child.

---

Issue

What standard of care applies to children in negligence? Should they be judged by the adult reasonable person standard, or by a standard adjusted to their age?

---

Decision

The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was not negligent. Children are judged according to the standard of a reasonable child of the same age, not by adult standards. The risk of serious injury from snapping a plastic ruler was not something that an ordinary 15-year-old would reasonably have foreseen.

---

Legal Principle

The reasonable person standard is modified for children. A child defendant is judged against the standard of a reasonable child of the same age and experience. Foreseeability is assessed from that perspective.

---

Importance

• Key authority on special categories of defendant.

• Demonstrates flexibility within the objective standard.

• Frequently cited in school injury and youth negligence cases.

• Shows how breach analysis adapts to the characteristics of the defendant.