is therefore that of a "reasonable professional", e.g. car mechanic, doctor etc. Breach of the duty owed, Sabol v. Richmond Heights General Hospital (1996) The court stated that the nurses’ actions were consistent with basic professional standards of practice for medical-surgical nurses in an acute care hospital. They did not have nor were they expected to have specialized psychiatric nursing training and would not be judged as though they did.<ref>See Yoder-Wise, Patricia. Leading and Managing in Nursing, Revised Reprint, 5th Edition. Mosby, 2011.</ref> Novices (imperitia culpae adnumerator) Novices in a certain area of skill must show the same standard of care as a reasonable person with that particular skill. No allowance is given for the defendant's lack of experience.Nettleship v Weston (1971) 3 All ER 581 requires a novice driver to show the same standard of care as a reasonably competent driver.Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1986) 3 All ER 801 expects a junior doctor to perform compliant to the standard of a competent and skilled doctor working in the same post.Wells v Cooper (1958) 2 All ER 527 states that someone who does DIY jobs repairing their own house is expected to show the same standard of care as a reasonably skilled amateur in the particular trade involved. However, they are not required to reach the standard of a professional. It is important to note that the claimant's knowledge of the defendant's lack of experience in the skill he is exercising does not result in the standard being lowered. In Nettleship v Weston, a driving instructor was injured due to a mistake of his student. The student argued that the instructor was aware of her lack of experience, but the Court of Appeal refused to accommodate this fact in their decision on the standard of care expected from her. At the same time, the teacher's award of damages was reduced due to his contributory negligence. Children While no allowance is made for novices, the courts are prepared to lower the standard of care expected of children, on account of their age. A child defendant is expected to meet the standard of a reasonable child of the same age. Gough v Thorne (1966) 3 All ER 398: a 13½ year old girl was not contributorily negligent when she crossed the road without looking after being beckoned by a lorry driver and was hit by a car driving at excessive