Roberts v. Ring

Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919 · Torts

Tortsnegligencechildrencontributory negligencestandard of carechild standard of carecontributory negligenceordinary prudent person

Facts

Defendant, age 77, was driving south on a heavily traveled street in Owatonna; his sight and hearing were defective, and traffic was practically blocked by a buggy approaching from the south and other conveyances. The seven-year-old boy ran from behind the buggy across the street and in front of defendant's automobile, and there was evidence he had been riding on the rear of the buggy. Defendant testified he saw the boy when the boy was four or five feet from the automobile, but the car struck the boy and passed over him. The trial court instructed the jury that a person crossing the street must use the care of an ordinarily prudent person and also told the jury to consider the age of both the boy and the defendant in determining negligence.

Issue

Whether the evidence of defendant's negligence and the boy's contributory negligence was for the jury, and whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury to measure the seven-year-old boy's conduct by the ordinarily prudent person standard and by suggesting defendant's age and infirmities could lessen his negligence.

Rule

A seven-year-old child's contributory negligence is judged by the degree of care commonly exercised by the ordinary child of that age and maturity under similar circumstances. By contrast, when a person causes injury to others, his negligence is judged by the standard of care usually exercised by the ordinarily prudent normal person; age and physical infirmities do not excuse the failure to meet that standard and, if relevant at all, may weigh against the actor.

🔒

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 Duluth, eight-year-old Maya Soto chased a paper flyer into a residential street between parked vans and was struck by a delivery car driven by Owen Pike. At trial, Owen argues that Maya was contributorily negligent because she failed to act as an ordinarily prudent adult pedestrian would have acted before entering the street.

Which instruction on Maya's contributory negligence is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. A young child's contributory negligence in protecting herself is not judged by the adult ordinarily prudent person standard. The proper measure is the degree of care commonly exercised by an ordinary child of the same age and maturity under similar circumstances. An instruction using the ordinary prudent adult standard would be erroneous.