Dellwo v. Pearson

Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1961 · Torts

TortsNegligenceProximate CauseStandard of CareChild Defendantsproximate causeforeseeabilitychild standard of care

Facts

Plaintiffs were trolling slowly on a lake with 40 to 50 feet of fishing line trailing behind their boat. Defendant, a 12-year-old boy operating a powerboat with an outboard motor, crossed behind plaintiffs' boat, and Mrs. Dellwo's fishing line was suddenly jerked and rapidly pulled out. Because the line was knotted to the reel spool, the rod was pulled down, the reel struck the side of the boat, came apart, and part of it flew through Mrs. Dellwo's glasses and injured her eye. At the dock, inspection of defendant's motor showed 2 to 3 feet of fishing line wound around the propeller.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred by making foreseeability a test of proximate cause and by instructing the jury that defendant, because he was a child, was held only to the standard of care of a child of like age, capacity, and experience while operating a powerboat. The court also considered whether contributory negligence should have been submitted on the record presented.

Rule

Foreseeability is relevant to whether conduct is negligent, but it is not the test of proximate cause. If an act is negligent because it is one the actor should have anticipated as liable to result in injury to others, the actor is liable for any injury proximately resulting from it, even if the particular injury was not foreseeable; consequences that follow in unbroken sequence without an intervening efficient cause are natural and proximate. In operating an automobile, airplane, or powerboat, a minor is held to the same standard of care as an adult.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

On Lake Minnetonka, 15-year-old Evan Rios drives a powerboat too fast through a marked no-wake area and passes close behind a small fishing boat. The wake jolts a tackle box loose, causing a metal lure to spring upward and cut passenger Nora Feldman's face.

If Nora sues Evan for negligence, which is the best statement about proximate cause?

Explanation. Foreseeability bears on whether Evan's conduct was negligent, not on whether that negligence was the proximate cause of Nora's injury. Once the operation of the powerboat is negligent, the actor is liable for injuries that follow in unbroken sequence without an intervening efficient cause, even if the particular injury was not anticipated.