181
have thought it necessary to provide against it. Alderson, B.,
(p. 784) well defined Negligence as being "The omission to do
something which a
reasonable man, guided by those considerations
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would
do; or the doing something which he would not do."
In
Williams v. Eady (9 T.L.R. 637, and 10 T.L.R. 41), Cave, J.,
thus illustrates the principle:- "Negligence
is a question of
degree. It would be negligence to leave a knife about, where a
child of four could get at it; but not where only lads of
eighteen would have access to it. Again, there are some
dangerous things which
it is necessary to leave about; whilst
this would be negligence if they were not necessary".
Accordingly the defendant, a school-master,
who kept a bottle of
phosphorus, (which he used for making hockey-balls luminous when
played with at night), in the room where the pupils' cricketing
things were kept, was held liable for injuries caused to one boy
by another's having carried off the
bottle to the play-ground,
where it exploded.
As was said by Lord Collins, "The standard of Reasonableness of
Care must naturally vary according to the circumstances of the
case, the trust reposed, and the
skill and appliances at the
disposal of the person to whom another confides a duty"; L.R.
[1903] 2 K.B. at p. 226. Thus in felling a tree in a forest the
same precautions are not necessary as in felling one that stands
in the hedge adjoining a public road. Time and place and
182
surroundings must all be considered.
Hence the standard of care to be required
from a child is only
such (if any) as may reasonably be expected at his particular
age. Cf. p. 32
supra.
A motorist may be guilty of Negligence in several ways; e.g. by
excessive speed, by being on the wrong side of the road, by
failure to sound his horn, by
not keeping a proper look-out, or
by being intoxicated.]