My child was given food at our neighbour's house. A few hours after returning home, she began vomiting, and we had to rush her to the hospital. My child knows that she shouldn't eat at other people's houses, but she must have gotten carried away. I understand they gave her milk, yet she is lactose intolerant. Can I sue the neighbours for giving my child food without my consent?
A child drinking milk.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
In all cases involving children presented before a court of competent jurisdiction, the petitioner is legally required to articulate their allegations in accordance with the law. In such matters, both the individual bringing the lawsuit and the court adjudicating the claims must adhere to Article 53, Clause (2) of the Constitution, which mandates that the best interests of the child be considered in all matters, decisions, programs, and actions affecting them. The various factors that comprise this principle are outlined in Section 8 of the Children’s Act of 2022.
The law of tort does recognise the offence described in your text. Therefore, you need to consider whether your neighbour owed your child a duty of care, and to what extent. Additionally, you should reflect on whether you, as a parent, complied with Article 53, Clause 1, paragraph (e) of the Constitution, which grants every child the right to parental care and protection. The fundamental principle is that as adults, we have an unlimited duty of care towards our children, since their ability to make decisions is regarded as inadequate until they reach the age of majority.
To successfully sue someone for negligence in tort law, three primary factors must be established according to Sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act.
These factors also guide the court in determining whether to vary, reject, or accept a conclusion in favour of the plaintiff. Since we have established that there is a duty of care owed to children, the court will consider three key points: first, whether the duty was breached; second, whether this breach resulted in foreseeable harm; and third, whether the defendant's conduct was consistent with that of a reasonable person who might find themselves in similar circumstances.
The reasonable person standard is a legal benchmark used to determine whether an individual acted with the level of care that an ordinary, prudent person would exhibit in the same situation.
This standard is objective; it does not rely on the defendant's personal beliefs or intentions, but rather on societal expectations of a careful and responsible individual.
A reasonable person is defined as someone who exercises ordinary caution, good judgment, and considers potential risks that an average person would recognise. They take appropriate actions to prevent foreseeable harm and are not unusually careless.
In this scenario, one must consider: would a reasonable person have given your child milk without first checking for allergies or intolerances?
While the accused may have a case to answer, a competent court will also seek to establish the role of the child's parent in this matter.
First, the court may want to understand why the child was left in their own care to enter the neighbour’s house: was the visit official or random? Secondly, the court may inquire whether the accused neighbour was aware of the child's health condition and whether this information is known in the neighbourhood.
Furthermore, the court might consider whether lactose intolerance is a common issue among children, which would prompt any adult to exercise caution when feeding a child.
Although you assert that your child cannot eat at houses other than their own, it will ultimately be the court's responsibility to determine whether this holds any legal basis for faulting the actions or inactions of the accused person. The scenarios described can be compared, and both lead to a common conclusion: the child is owed a duty of care.
We can also assess the extent of negligence on the part of both parties. The court's determination of liability will be based on the reasonable person standard, which follows a balance of probabilities. This means that for a claim to succeed, it must be more likely than not to be true.
The legal principles outlined highlight the key issues to consider before deciding to sue your neighbour. Ultimately, the decision to sue or not is your right.
