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.
You might also like
Daily Email Updates
Subscribe to our daily digest and get the day’s content delivered fresh to your inbox every morning at 7am.
Signup for emails