Inspired by London 2012 Neil, aged 15, decides to take Archery lessons run by 'Rack-Horse Archery Club'. The lessons take place in a field owned by the club, which is adjacent to a quiet country lane. The targets are set some distance from the lane; however the only barrier between the field and the lane is the hedgerow. Roger is walking his dog along the lane when Neil loses control of his bow and his arrow flies off at an unexpected tangent, landing in Roger's eye. Which of the following would be the best argument for Neil to make?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Option D is the best argument for Neil to make as it asserts that he had acted as an ordinary child of 15, and as such, he had not fallen below the standard of care that could reasonably be expected from him. This argument implies that the accident was not caused by Neil's negligence but rather a simple mistake that could have occurred to any person of his age and experience level. It also takes into account that Archery classes are often given to children of 14-15 years and they may not have complete control over their actions. Option A is not a good argument as contributory negligence may apply only if Roger was also negligent, which is not the case here. Option B is not entirely accurate as it does not address the issue of negligence. Option C may not be relevant as the accident did not take place during an actual sporting event, but rather during lessons.

Inspired by London 2012 Neil, Aged 15, Decides to Take