Gough v Thorne [1966] 1 WLR 1387

Facts

• The plaintiff, a girl aged thirteen and a half, and her two brothers were waiting to cross a main road at a junction.
• A lorry, having turned from a side road, stopped at the main road and signaled to oncoming traffic, then beckoned the children to cross.
• As the children walked past the front of the stopped lorry, the defendant drove his car between the lorry and a central bollard, and struck the plaintiff.
• The plaintiff sued for damages, alleging the defendant's negligence was the cause of the accident.
• The defendant argued that the plaintiff either caused the accident or contributed to it by her own actions.
• The trial judge found the defendant negligent, but attributed one third of the liability to the plaintiff due to her failure to observe oncoming traffic before crossing.

Issues

1. Whether a child can be found contributorily negligent, and if so, what standard of care applies given their age and maturity.
2. Whether the trial judge correctly applied the reasonable care standard to the plaintiff, considering her age, when assessing contributory negligence.
3. Under what circumstances a child may be deemed responsible for failing to exercise precautions for their own safety.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff’s appeal, overturning the trial judge’s finding of contributory negligence.
• It held that a child should not generally be found guilty of contributory negligence unless there is clear proof of sufficient age and experience to appreciate risks and take precautions.
• The court found that, in the circumstances, the plaintiff could not be expected to check for oncoming traffic after being beckoned by the lorry driver to cross.
• The standard of care expected from a child plaintiff is not the same as that expected from an adult, particularly where specific circumstances indicate reliance on an adult’s instruction or signal.

Legal Principles

• Contributory negligence in children is assessed by reference to their age, understanding, and experience, not the adult standard.
• Children are not generally contributorily negligent unless proven to have sufficient maturity to recognize and avoid risks.
• The primary responsibility lies with adults to safeguard children from foreseeable harm arising from negligent acts.
• The case reinforced that unless blame can properly be attached, considering the child’s age and comprehension, liability should not reduce a child's claim due to contributory negligence.

Conclusion

Gough v Thorne [1966] 1 WLR 1387 established that the standard of care for contributory negligence in children is less demanding than for adults; a child should not be found contributorily negligent unless demonstrably capable of understanding and avoiding the relevant risks, thereby providing important legal protection for young claimants in negligence cases.