Goss v. Allen
70 N.J. 442, 360 A.2d 388 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A minor participating in a recreational activity that is common for all ages, such as skiing, is held to the standard of care of a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience. The higher adult standard of care applies only when a minor engages in an activity that is potentially hazardous and normally undertaken by adults, such as driving a motor vehicle.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, an experienced skier serving as a first aid advisor on a ski patrol, was standing in a flat area near the base of a beginners' ski slope in Vermont.
- Plaintiff was taking pictures with a friend in an area adjacent to the first aid room where she had been working.
- Defendant Allen, a 17-year-old with no prior downhill skiing experience, was attempting his first run on the lower portion of the beginners' slope.
- The beginners' slope featured an abrupt left turn near its end.
- While attempting to negotiate the turn, Allen lost control of his momentum and direction.
- Allen saw the plaintiff but was unable to regain control or call out a warning in time due to his lack of experience and the short distance.
- Allen collided with the plaintiff, knocking her down and causing injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for personal injuries against defendant Allen in a New Jersey trial court.
- The jury returned a verdict for defendant Allen, based on a specific finding that he was not negligent.
- Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division, on its own initiative, found that the trial court had committed plain error in its jury instruction regarding the standard of care.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that an adult standard of care should have been applied.
- Defendant Allen subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
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 engaged in the recreational sport of skiing required to adhere to the same standard of care as an adult?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
No. A minor engaged in recreational skiing is held to the standard of care of a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience, not the standard of an adult. The court reasoned that skiing is a common recreational sport engaged in by people of all ages, not an activity that is so potentially hazardous and normally undertaken only by adults as to justify an adult standard of care. The court distinguished skiing from activities like operating a motor vehicle or a motorboat, which often require a license demonstrating adult competence and are therefore subject to an adult standard. Applying the general rule for minors, the defendant's conduct on a beginners' slope was not an activity that, as a matter of law, was so hazardous to others that it required holding him to an adult standard of conduct.
Dissenting - Schreiber, J.
Yes. A minor engaged in an activity in which adults normally engage, such as skiing, should be held to the adult standard of care. The dissent argued that it is inequitable and unjust to impose the burden of a minor's hazardous conduct on an innocent victim. The majority's 'potentially hazardous' test is vague, and the dissent contended that whenever a minor participates in activities alongside adults that pose a risk of serious injury to others, the minor should be held to the same standard of care as an adult. The dissent also criticized the trial court's jury instructions for being confusing and for omitting the key factor of 'intelligence' from the standard of care, warranting a new trial even under the majority's rule.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional, subjective standard of care for minors but clarifies the limited scope of the 'adult activity' exception. By classifying recreational skiing as a general activity rather than an inherently dangerous one, the court resisted the trend of expanding the adult standard to more recreational sports. This precedent makes it more difficult to hold minors to an adult standard for injuries caused during common sporting activities, thereby protecting minors from liability that does not account for their age and experience. Future cases will have to distinguish their facts from this case to argue that a particular recreational activity is 'potentially hazardous' enough to warrant an adult standard.
