Breach of Duty : THE STANDARD OF CARE Case Notes

McHale v Watson !"##$ !!% C&R !""' H()h Court Austral(a$ A 12-year-old boy D threw a home-made dart at a wooden post; it either missed or rebounded, and hit and injured a 9-year-old girl C standing nearby !he appellate "ourt upheld the judge#s ruling that D#s "ondu"t was to be judged against the standards o$ the reasonable 12-year-old, and that "onse%uently he had not been negligent

Mull(n v R(char*s +!"",- ! All ER "./' CA !wo 1&-year-old s"hoolgirls C and D had a 'sword $ight' with plasti" rulers in their "lassroom; one o$ the rulers snapped and a pie"e o$ plasti" entered C#s eye, "ausing permanent damage !he Court o$ Appeal said there was insu$$i"ient e(iden"e that the a""ident had been $oreseeable in what had been no more than a "hildish game

Nettlesh(0 v Weston +!"1!- 2 All ER %,!' CA A learner dri(er D went out $or her $irst lesson, super(ised by a $riend ) D "rashed the "ar into a lamppost, and ) was injured )#s "laim $or damages was upheld by the Court o$ Appeal, subje"t to a dedu"tion $or "ontributory negligen"e *(en learner dri(ers, said the Court, are to be judged against the standard o$ the reasonably "ompetent dri(er !he $a"t that a parti"ular dri(er is ine+perien"ed and in"ompetent does not e+"use his $alling short o$ this standard

Bola3 v Fr(ern Hos0(tal +!"%1- . All ER !!,' McNa(r 4 A mentally ill patient C was gi(en ele"tro"on(ulsi(e therapy ,*C!-, during whi"h he su$$ered a $ra"tured pel(is and other injuries !he ris. o$ su"h injuries "ould ha(e been redu"ed had C been gi(en "ertain rela+ing drugs be$ore the treatment/ the medi"al pro$ession was di(ided as to whether su"h drugs should be gi(en !he judge said the test would be the standard o$ the ordinary s.illed man e+er"ising and pro$essing to ha(e the parti"ular medi"al s.ill, but a do"tor who a"ts in a""ordan"e with a pra"ti"e appro(ed by a responsible body o$ medi"al opinion is not negligent merely be"ause there is a body o$ "ontrary opinion