Is a Child to Blame?
07 August 2009
A recent case raised the question as to what extent a child is responsible for his or her own actions.
The case concerned a claim brought by a woman against two thirteen-year-old pupils at the school where she worked. The boys had been playing tag in the allocated play area within the school grounds. There was no school rule restricting running in the playground. One of the boys was running backwards and collided with the woman, causing her serious injuries. She sued the boys for damages. In court, the judge ruled against her, stating that the accident was caused by “horseplay between two 13-year-old boys…boys doing what boys do.” The woman appealed against the decision, but pursued her claim only against the boy who had collided with her.
There was no question that the boy owed the woman a duty of care. What had to be established was whether or not there had been a breach of that duty. The court had to decide if a child of thirteen could be culpable for his actions in an accident such as this. The judge concluded that a child of thirteen should be considered to be aware of the risk of some injury from play of this kind, such as grazes and bruises. However, the test of whether an “ordinarily prudent and reasonable thirteen-year-old schoolboy would have realised that his actions gave rise to a risk to injury” was too broad a test. In the judge’s view, a child should not be expected to stop playing games just because he is aware of the risk of minor injuries attached to playing such games.
The test for determining whether a child has breached a duty of care depends on whether or not their actions fall below the standard reasonably expected of a child of that age and whether or not they can reasonably foresee that injury could occur. A child will only be held to be culpable if their actions are careless to a very high degree. In this case, the boy had not broken any school rules in running or playing tag. For him to be deemed culpable, the woman would have to prove that he was playing in a way considered to be outside the scope of normal play for a child his age. The judge saw nothing out of the ordinary in the boy’s behaviour in relation to his knowledge regarding potential injuries. He was simply acting as a normal thirteen-year-old boy playing a game. The case was therefore dismissed.
Says Simon Wright, “In general, the school will be responsible for the supervision of children on its premises. Holding a child liable when there are adults present to maintain control would normally be unjust. The courts accept that accidents do happen and not every injury is someone’s fault.”
The case concerned a claim brought by a woman against two thirteen-year-old pupils at the school where she worked. The boys had been playing tag in the allocated play area within the school grounds. There was no school rule restricting running in the playground. One of the boys was running backwards and collided with the woman, causing her serious injuries. She sued the boys for damages. In court, the judge ruled against her, stating that the accident was caused by “horseplay between two 13-year-old boys…boys doing what boys do.” The woman appealed against the decision, but pursued her claim only against the boy who had collided with her.
There was no question that the boy owed the woman a duty of care. What had to be established was whether or not there had been a breach of that duty. The court had to decide if a child of thirteen could be culpable for his actions in an accident such as this. The judge concluded that a child of thirteen should be considered to be aware of the risk of some injury from play of this kind, such as grazes and bruises. However, the test of whether an “ordinarily prudent and reasonable thirteen-year-old schoolboy would have realised that his actions gave rise to a risk to injury” was too broad a test. In the judge’s view, a child should not be expected to stop playing games just because he is aware of the risk of minor injuries attached to playing such games.
The test for determining whether a child has breached a duty of care depends on whether or not their actions fall below the standard reasonably expected of a child of that age and whether or not they can reasonably foresee that injury could occur. A child will only be held to be culpable if their actions are careless to a very high degree. In this case, the boy had not broken any school rules in running or playing tag. For him to be deemed culpable, the woman would have to prove that he was playing in a way considered to be outside the scope of normal play for a child his age. The judge saw nothing out of the ordinary in the boy’s behaviour in relation to his knowledge regarding potential injuries. He was simply acting as a normal thirteen-year-old boy playing a game. The case was therefore dismissed.
Says Simon Wright, “In general, the school will be responsible for the supervision of children on its premises. Holding a child liable when there are adults present to maintain control would normally be unjust. The courts accept that accidents do happen and not every injury is someone’s fault.”
