Study Notes
Key Case | Orchard v Lee (2009) | Negligence - Breach of Duty - Children
- Level:
- A-Level, BTEC National
- Board:
- AQA, Edexcel, OCR, IB, Eduqas, WJEC
Last updated 4 Sept 2022
When the court is dealing with a child defendant, the question for the court was whether the defendant’s actions had fallen below the standard that should objectively be expected of a child of that age.
CASE SUMMARY
Claimant: Lee – a lunchtime supervisor
Defendant: Orchard - 13 year old school boy
Facts: The defendant was playing tag with another pupil of the same age when he ran into the claimant causing her injury.
Outcome: Not liable
Legal principle: A child is judged by the standards of a reasonable child of his age rather than a reasonable adult. Unlike an adult defendant, the level of carelessness required for breach of duty by a child will be very high. The defendants conduct was normal for that of a 13 year old playing a game of tag.