Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Mullin v Richards

[1998] 1 All ER 920

Case summary last updated at 19/01/2020 12:01 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Mullin v Richards

2 girls were mock-fighting with rulers and P’s ruler smashed, getting glass in D’s eye. She sued D for negligence. CA said that the test of reasonable foreseeability, proximity and fair, just and reasonable. However what was “reasonably foreseeable” was considered by reference to age and sex. In this case, although it was reasonably foreseeable to an adult that D might get injured, it was not reasonably foreseeable to a 15 year old girl. “Reasonable” is to be considered in the context of age and sex. This makes the test less objective. They could also have used the “horseplay” excuse of Blake v Galloway.

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Tort Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law Notes >>