header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
21 May 2009 / Robert Weir KC
Issue: 7370 / Categories: Features , Child law , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Child's play

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Robert Weir on how common sense prevailed after a playground incident

* * * * * *

In Orchard v Lee [2009] EWCA 295 Mrs Orchard was working as a lunchtime assistant supervisor at a school. She was with another supervisor and walking outside in an area where the children regularly ran around playing. The defendant was one such 13-year-old boy. He was playing tag with another 13-year-old boy. He could see Orchard and adjusted his course as he ran away from the other boy. He then turned around to taunt his friend while still running, only now backwards. He collided with the claimant.

The claim

Orchard framed her claim against the defendant in negligence. As Orchard was not a participant in the game of tag, no issue of consent was raised. There did not appear to be any issue over the fact that the defendant owed the adult supervisor a duty of care. The case focused on whether the admitted duty of care had been breached.

The lead judgment in the Court

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll