Welcome to Law forums for and by law students!
Law forum, law students, law subjects

You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user. Sign up or
Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions.

R V G and another

Discussion in 'Law of Tort' started by Molineux, Nov 11, 2008.

  1. Molineux Super Moderator

    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    28
    FROM WIKIPEDIA

    R v G and Another [2003] 1 Cr App R 21
    Two boys, aged 11 and 12 years, were camping without their parents' permission when they entered the back yard of a shop in the early hours of the morning, Lighting some newspapers which they had found in the yard, they left, with the papers still burning. The newspapers set fire to nearby rubbish bins standing against the shop wall, where it spread up the wall and on to the roof of the shop. Approximately £1m damage was caused. The children argued they expected the fire to burn itself out and said they gave no thought to the risk of its spreading. When their appeal reached the House of Lords, Lord Bingham saw the need to modify Lord Diplock's definition to take account of the defence of infancy which contains the concept of "mischievous discretion". This rule requires the court to consider the extent to which children of eight or more years are able to understand the difference between "right" and "wrong". The Diplock test of obviousness might operate unfairly for 11- and 12-year-old boys if they were held to the same standard as reasonable adults. Bingham stated that a person acts 'recklessly' with respect to:

    (i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;
    (ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur; and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk."
    This brings the test back to a subjective standard so that defendants can be judged on the basis of their age, experience and understanding rather than on the standard of a hypothetical reasonable person who might have better knowledge and understanding. Nevertheless, the test remains hybrid because the credibility of the accused's denial of knowledge and understanding will always be judged against an objective standard of what you would expect a person of the same general age and abilities as the accused to have known.
    Molineux, Nov 11, 2008
    #1

  2. silverwineus New law student

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How come i failed to find this R v G?:khi8a:

    Thanks, u save my day :khi9d:
    silverwineus, Nov 11, 2008
    #2

  3. Mikey Guest

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I printed the pages from wikipedia, will go home and study it and then tomorrow will post something smart! (I hope)
    :khi9d:
    Mikey, Nov 11, 2008
    #3

  4. silverwineus New law student

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow, i look forward to that Mike..Hmm..what have you found on Wiki?:khi3f:
    Anyway don't worry if it's something stupid, promise i won't laugh:khi1e:
    silverwineus, Nov 12, 2008
    #4

  5. Mikey Guest

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The "reasonable person" standard is an objective standard; that is, it may be different than what an individual volunteer or organization considers reasonable. For instance, hospital volunteers without medical training may judge it reasonable to not personally intervene if they see a patient choking. Yet it is reasonable for these volunteers to go for emergency help anyway. The volunteers could be held liable for not seeking assistance.

    Besides being an objective standard, the "reasonable person" standard is an adult standard. In other words, it is based on what a reasonable adult would do in the given situation. However, there are three exceptions to this standard. They apply to children, professionals, and standards set by statute. - Children will generally be held to a lesser standard of care than adults. The standard for children is measured by what a child of the same age, experience, and intelligence would do in the same circumstances.

    However, this lower standard of care does not apply when children participate in adult activities, such as driving a car or boat. This poses specific concerns for the organization that involves children as volunteers. Among them are the type of training offered, the age and prior experience of the child, and the nature of the volunteer task.

    By Minnesota Office of Citizenship and Volunteer Services
    From Planning It Safe
    Mikey, Nov 14, 2008
    #5

  6. Molineux Super Moderator

    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Standard of care

    Hi Mike,

    The above post comments on reasonable standard of care is more appropriate for Tort Law - You may want to start a new heading.
    Molineux, Nov 16, 2008
    #6

  7. Mikey Guest

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    this was moved to the new tort forum!
    Mikey, Nov 16, 2008
    #7

  8. Molineux Super Moderator

    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Note:

    Only post #5 onwards is Tort Law. R V G is a criminal case
    concerning criminal damage.
    Molineux, Nov 16, 2008
    #8

Share This Page