Dellwo v. Pearson
259 Minn. 452, 107 N.W.2d 859, 97 A.L.R.2d 866 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A minor who engages in the operation of an automobile, airplane, or powerboat is held to the same standard of care as an adult.
Facts:
- Jeanette Dellwo and her husband were fishing in a boat, trolling at a low speed with 40 to 50 feet of fishing line trailing behind them.
- The defendant, a 12-year-old boy, was operating a motorboat nearby.
- The defendant's motorboat crossed behind the Dellwos' boat, catching their fishing line.
- Jeanette Dellwo felt a strong jerk on her line, which was pulled out rapidly until it ran out.
- Because the line was knotted to the reel, the fishing rod was pulled down sharply, causing the reel to strike the side of the boat and shatter.
- A piece of the broken reel flew into Jeanette Dellwo's glasses, injuring her eye.
- Shortly thereafter, an inspection of the defendant's motor revealed two to three feet of fishing line wound around the propeller.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeanette E. Dellwo and her husband sued the 12-year-old defendant in a Minnesota trial court for personal injuries.
- The case was tried before a jury, which was instructed that the defendant should be held to the standard of care of a child of like age and experience.
- The jury was also instructed that liability for negligence was limited to foreseeable consequences.
- The jury returned a general verdict for the defendant.
- The plaintiffs, the Dellwos, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a minor operating a powerboat held to the adult standard of reasonable care, or to the lesser standard of a child of like age, mental capacity, and experience?
Opinions:
Majority - Loevinger, Justice
Yes, a minor operating a powerboat is held to the same standard of care as an adult. While the general rule holds minors to a standard of care commensurate with their age and experience, an exception applies when a minor engages in an activity that is inherently dangerous and normally undertaken by adults. One cannot know whether the operator of an approaching automobile, airplane, or powerboat is a minor or an adult and cannot protect against youthful imprudence. Therefore, to protect the public, any operator of such a vehicle must be held to a single, adult standard of care. The court also held that the trial court erred in its instruction on proximate cause by making foreseeability the test. In Minnesota, negligence is tested by foresight, but proximate cause is determined by hindsight; a negligent party is liable for all natural and proximate consequences of their act, whether or not those specific consequences were foreseeable.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the traditional, subjective standard of care for minors in negligence cases. By creating an objective, adult standard for minors engaged in 'adult activities' like operating powerful motor vehicles, the court prioritized public safety over the historic leniency afforded to children. This case established a new, influential rule that holds minors accountable for the risks they create when they voluntarily engage in activities that are inherently dangerous and require adult-level caution and skill. The ruling provides a clear precedent for future cases involving minors and dangerous instrumentalities, influencing tort law across the country.
Unlock the full brief for Dellwo v. Pearson