Mullins v richards. During the game, the defendant's ruler snapped, Aug 6, 2025 · Mullin v Richards is a landmark decision by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, delivered in 1998. ” A case of negligence involving two 15 year old school girls fighting with plastic rulers. Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 All ER 920 is a judgment of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, dealing with liability of children under English law of negligence. Richards, filed at England & Wales"… I do not think any doubt was raised as to this, that if on the balance of probabilities the two girls were participating on equal terms, or both as free agents participating in an event of horseplay which, as they must both have appreciated became in its concluding stage dangerous because it involved rulers being used with some violence, if What happened in Mullin v Richards? Two fifteen-year-old school friends, Teresa Mullin and Heidi Richards, were playing a game of sword fight with plastic rulers. The court applied the standard of a reasonable child of the same age and the objective test of breach in negligence. The existence of some risk is an ordinary incident of life, even when all due care has been, as it must be, taken. Unfortunately, one of the rulers snapped, and a piece of plastic entered M's right eye, resulting in the loss of all useful sight in that eye. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was not liable for the injury caused by the game, as she could not have reasonably foreseen the risk. A case of negligence involving two 15-year-old girls fencing with plastic rulers in their classroom. The claimant sued the defendant in the tort of negligence for her injuries. . Mar 7, 2018 · In the course of the game, the defendant’s ruler snapped, causing a splinter to hit the claimant in the eye, blinding her. Richards & Anor Smart Summary (Beta) Factual and Procedural Background On 29 February 1988 at a secondary school in The City, two fifteen-year-old schoolgirls, Plaintiff and Defendant, who were friends, engaged in play involving hitting each other's plastic rulers as if in a sword fight. A case summary of Mullin v Richards, where a 15-year-old girl was not liable for blinding another girl with a ruler in school. “Nor is the remote possibility of injury occurring enough; there must be sufficient probability to lead a reasonable man to anticipate it. Jul 12, 2024 · Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304 deals with the issue of negligence, specifically in the context of children and the standard of care owed by them. Mullin v. The court applied the standard of a reasonable 15 year old girl, not a reasonable man, to determine the breach of duty. Mullin v Richards — Mullins v Richards [1998] 1 All ER 920 is a judgment of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, dealing with liability of children under English law of negligence. The defendant, a 15-year-old girl, engaged in play-fighting with rulers with another 15-year-old girl (the claimant). [1] The question in the case was what standard of behaviour could be expected of a child. Jan 4, 2024 · Two 15-year-old schoolgirls, Mullin (M) and Richards (R), were engaging in a fencing game using plastic rulers during a class. Oct 8, 2023 · A tort law case on negligence and foreseeability of risk involving two 15-year-old school friends playing with plastic rulers. This case is pivotal in the development of negligence law, particularly concerning the standard of care expected from children. The Court of Appeal held that the standard of care for a child was not that of a reasonable person, but of a reasonable and "ordinarily prudent" 15-year-old. jjqzl aopwh lnlfki uvfet eqgmbb eqjv ndvhw khzjkt sye sawwx