Breach of Duty : THE STANDARD OF CARE – Case Notes
 McHale v Watson (1966) 115 CLR 199, High Court (Australia)
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. The appellate court
upheld the judge's ruling that D's conduct was to be judged against the standards of
the reasonable 12-year-old, and that consequently he had not been negligent.
 Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 All ER 920, CA
Two 15-year-old schoolgirls C and D had a "sword fight" with plastic rulers in their
classroom; one of the rulers snapped and a piece of plastic entered C's eye, causing
permanent damage. The Court of Appeal said there was insufficient evidence that the
accident had been foreseeable in what had been no more than a childish game.
 Nettleship v Weston [1971] 3 All ER 581, CA
A learner driver D went out for her first lesson, supervised by a friend P. D crashed the
car into a lamppost, and P was injured. P's claim for damages was upheld by the Court of
Appeal, subject to a deduction for contributory negligence. Even learner drivers, said
the Court, are to be judged against the standard of the reasonably competent driver.
The fact that a particular driver is inexperienced and incompetent does not excuse his
falling short of this standard.
 Bolam v Friern Hospital [1957] 2 All ER 118, McNair J
A mentally ill patient ‘C’ was given electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), during which he
suffered a fractured pelvis and other injuries. The risk of such injuries could have been
reduced had C been given certain relaxing drugs before the treatment: the medical
profession was divided as to whether such drugs should be given. The judge said the
test would be the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to
have the particular medical skill, but a doctor who acts in accordance with a practice
approved by a responsible body of medical opinion is not negligent merely because there
is a body of contrary opinion