Robinson v. Lindsay

92 Wash. 2d 410, 598 P.2d 392 (1979)

 

RULE:

Courts in other jurisdictions have created an exception to the special child standard because of the apparent injustice that would occur if a child who caused injury while engaged in certain dangerous activities were permitted to defend himself by saying that other children similarly situated would not have exercised a degree of care higher than his, and he is, therefore, not liable for his tort. Some courts have couched the exception in terms of children engaging in an activity which is normally one for adults only. The State of Washington Supreme Court believes a better rationale is that when the activity a child engages in is inherently dangerous, as is the operation of powerful mechanized vehicles, the child should be held to an adult standard of care.

FACTS:

Plaintiff was injured in a snowmobile accident and sued defendant, the thirteen-year old driver of the snowmobile. The trial court instructed the jury that, in considering the claimed negligence of a child, it was the duty of that child to exercise the same care that a reasonably careful child of same age, intelligence, maturity, training, and experience would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. Verdict was returned for defendant. Plaintiff motioned for new trial, stating that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury on an adult standard of care. The trial court agreed and ordered a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the order. On defendant’s appeal, the state supreme court affirmed the lower court holdings.

ISSUE:

Should a child operating a snowmobile be held to an adult standard of care?

ANSWER:

Yes.

CONCLUSION:

Because defendant child had engaged in the inherently dangerous activity of the operation of a snowmobile, he should have been held to an adult standard of care.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.