Mullin v Richards & Anor

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. During this play, one of the rulers snapped, and a fragment injured the Plaintiff's right eye, resulting in the loss of all useful sight in that eye. The Plaintiff brought negligence proceedings against the Defendant and the local education authority (Company A). The claim against Company A was dismissed by the trial judge, who found no negligence on the part of the class teacher and the Plaintiff did not appeal this decision. The trial judge accepted the Defendant's version of events, concluding that both girls were negligent and that the Plaintiff's injury was foreseeable, awarding damages to the Plaintiff against the Defendant subject to a 50% reduction for contributory negligence. The Defendant appealed this decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence that the Defendant appreciated the dangerousness of the conduct involved in the play fight.
2. Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the Defendant's conduct could cause injury of the type sustained by the Plaintiff.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in applying an adult standard of foreseeability rather than that of a reasonable 15-year-old schoolgirl.
4. Whether the judge’s finding of dangerous or excessive violence was supported by evidence.
5. Whether the breaking of the ruler was a foreseeable event.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• There was no or insufficient evidence that the Defendant must have appreciated that the conduct was dangerous.
• There was no or insufficient evidence that the injury was a readily foreseeable consequence of the Defendant’s conduct.
• The judge failed to apply the correct standard of care by not considering what a reasonable 15-year-old schoolgirl would foresee.
• The judge’s finding that the conduct was dangerous was inconsistent with evidence that the conduct was common and comparatively innocent, with no prohibition or history of injury.
• No evidence supported that the breaking of the ruler was foreseeable.

Respondent's Arguments

• This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully analyzed the facts, particularly the differing accounts of the accident. The trial judge had accepted the Defendant's version, finding that both girls were engaged in mutual play fighting and that both were negligent. However, the Court found that the trial judge erred in concluding negligence without sufficient evidential basis. The judge assumed excessive or dangerous force was used, but there was no evidence to support this. The Court noted that the play fighting was a common, accepted activity at the school, with no prohibition, warnings, or history of injury. The Court emphasized that the foreseeability of injury must be judged objectively from the perspective of a reasonable 15-year-old, applying the principles in McHale v Watson. The Court found no evidence that the Defendant or a reasonable peer would have foreseen a significant risk of injury from this conduct. The breaking of the ruler was unexplained and not shown to be a foreseeable consequence of the play. Consequently, the Court concluded that the trial judge was not entitled to find negligence on the facts.

Holding and Implications

Appeal allowed. The Court set aside the trial judge’s findings and award of damages, substituting judgment for the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s claim failed as no legal liability was established against the Defendant. Costs were awarded accordingly, with conditions on enforcement and legal aid taxation detailed.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Defendant is not held legally responsible for the Plaintiff’s injury. No new precedent was established beyond affirming the application of the objective standard of care appropriate to children in negligence cases.