Purtle v. Shelton

Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1971 · Torts

TortsNegligenceStandard of careMinorsminor standard of careadult standardreasonable careordinary care

Facts

Jerry Purtle, age sixteen, was injured during the 1969 deer hunting season when Kenneth Shelton, Jr., age seventeen, fired a 30.06 rifle after thinking he saw a deer. Earlier that morning, L. D. McMullen had warned both boys to make their presence known while walking in the woods and not to shoot without knowing the target was a deer. Jerry failed to find his stand, walked toward Kenneth's stand, and did not make his presence known. The bullet apparently struck a tree, fragmented, and ricocheted into Jerry's eyes, causing serious injury.

Issue

Whether a seventeen-year-old hunting deer with a high-powered rifle should be held to the same standard of care as an adult rather than the ordinary standard applicable to a reasonably careful minor of like age and intelligence. Also, whether the jury should have been instructed in terms of a high degree of care commensurate with the danger involved instead of reasonable care.

Rule

A minor is held to an adult standard of care only when engaged in an activity that is both dangerous to others and normally engaged in only by adults. Otherwise, the minor is judged by the care a reasonably careful minor of the same age and intelligence would use in similar circumstances. In negligence instructions, the applicable duty remains ordinary or reasonable care under the circumstances, not a separately stated higher degree of care.

🔒

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.

In rural Missouri, 15-year-old Eli Mercer accidentally injures another camper while target shooting with a powerful hunting rifle on family land. The plaintiff argues that because the rifle is highly dangerous, Eli must be judged by the same negligence standard as an adult.

Which is the best answer?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a minor is held to an adult standard only when the activity is both dangerous to others and normally engaged in only by adults. Danger alone is insufficient. Under the majority's reasoning, the mere use of a rifle does not automatically make the minor subject to an adult standard unless the additional adult-only element is satisfied.