McHale v Watson [1966] HCA 13

McHale v Watson [1966] HCA 13

The High Court held, by majority, that in negligence cases involving a child defendant, the appropriate standard of care is that reasonably to be expected of an ordinary child of the same age, intelligence and experience. The trial judge was entitled to take into account Barry Watson's age (twelve years) in assessing whether his conduct in throwing the metal rod amounted to negligence. The trial judge found, as a matter of fact, that the injury was not due to a lack of foresight reasonably to be expected of a boy of that age, nor to a want of reasonable care; therefore, Barry Watson was not negligent in the legal sense, and the appeal should be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to High Court of Australia From Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'standard of Care for Children' 'objective Standard' 'trespass' 'liability of Minors in Tort']
['tort Law'] ['negligence' 'standard of Care for Children' 'objective Standard' 'trespass' 'liability of Minors in Tort']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to High Court of Australia From Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What is the appropriate standard of care in negligence for a child defendant?' 'Is a child to be judged by the standard of a reasonable adult or by that required of a child of similar age, intelligence, and experience?' 'Was the defendant negligent in throwing the object, resulting in injury to the plaintiff?']

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held, by majority, that in negligence cases involving a child defendant, the appropriate standard of care is that reasonably to be expected of an ordinary child of the same age, intelligence and experience. The trial judge was entitled to take into account Barry Watson's age (twelve years) in assessing whether his conduct in throwing the metal rod amounted to negligence. The trial judge found, as a matter of fact, that the injury was not due to a lack of foresight reasonably to be expected of a boy of that age, nor to a want of reasonable care; therefore, Barry Watson was not negligent in the legal sense, and the appeal should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']