Hassenyer v. Mich. Cent. R.R. Co. - 48 Mich. 205, 12 N.W. 155 (1882)

Rule:

While the authorities permit all the circumstances to be taken into the account, age and sex among the rest, in determining the degree of care to be reasonably required or looked for, no case has ever laid it down as a rule of law that less care is required of a woman than of a man. Sex is certainly no excuse for negligence.

Facts:

The administrators' decedent, a 13-year-old girl, was struck and killed by a train while crossing a railroad track. They filed an action against the railway to recover damages for her death. The railway claimed that the girl's negligence barred the action. During trial, the trial judge instructed the jury to consider whether the decedent acted in accordance with the degree of care expected of a young woman. Ultimately, the trial court ruled in favor of the administrators. The railway sought review of the decision. 

Issue:

Did the trial court properly instruct the jury to consider the decedent’s sex in judging the issue of negligence? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the judgment in favor of the administrators and ordered a new trial. The court held that the case was so plain as to justify the court in taking it from the jury. According to the court, the question of negligence, where there was any evidence fairly tending to prove it, is for the jury. The court, however, held that the trial court committed error when it instructed the jury to consider whether the decedent acted in accordance with the degree of care expected of a young woman. While the age of the decedent was a legitimate factor in determining the standard of care to which she should have been held, this was not a case in which her gender would have made any difference. The court acknowledged that there were circumstances in which the injured party's gender might reasonably be considered in establishing the standard of care, but this was not one of them.