Hudson-Connor v. Putney
192 Or. App. 488, 86 P.3d 106, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 293 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purpose of determining the applicable standard of care in a negligence action, a minor's operation or entrustment of a low-speed motorized vehicle, such as a golf cart, on private property is not considered an "adult activity" that would subject the minor to an adult standard of care.
Facts:
- When the defendant was 12 years old, her grandfather purchased a motorized golf cart for her, which had a maximum speed of approximately 12 miles per hour.
- The defendant was permitted to drive the golf cart on her grandparents' private property and to allow other neighborhood children to drive it there as well.
- The defendant, now 14, had her own rule that no one under the age of 12 could drive the cart unaccompanied.
- On June 15, 2000, Bobby, an 11-year-old neighbor, asked the defendant if he could drive the golf cart.
- The defendant had previously allowed Bobby to drive only while she accompanied him, and she initially refused his request to drive alone.
- After Bobby began to beg, the defendant relented and allowed him to operate the golf cart by himself.
- While attempting to stop the cart, Bobby mistakenly stepped on the accelerator instead of the brake.
- The golf cart struck the plaintiff, a 16-year-old girl, fracturing her femur.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in a state trial court for negligent entrustment.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the court instructed the jury to apply the standard of care applicable to minors.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, finding her not negligent.
- The trial court entered a judgment for the defendant based on the jury's verdict.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the intermediate court of appeals.
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 who entrusts a motorized golf cart to another minor for operation on private property engaged in an 'adult activity' that requires the application of an adult standard of care?
Opinions:
Majority - Brewer, J.
No. A minor who entrusts a golf cart to another minor for operation on private property is not engaged in an 'adult activity' and is therefore subject to the standard of care for a minor of the same age, intelligence, and experience. The general rule holds minors to a lower standard of care than adults. An exception exists for 'adult activities,' which are defined as activities that are both (1) normally undertaken only by adults and (2) require adult qualifications. Here, the operation of a golf cart on private property fails both parts of this test. Unlike automobiles, which are operated at high speeds on public highways and require a license demonstrating complex skills, golf carts are low-speed vehicles typically restricted to private property and do not require a license or advanced driving skills. Plaintiff provided no evidence that golf cart operation is inherently dangerous or requires adult qualifications, nor that it is an activity normally undertaken only by adults. Because the operation of a golf cart is not an adult activity, the entrustment of the golf cart to another person is also not an adult activity. Therefore, the trial court correctly instructed the jury to apply the minor standard of care.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and narrows the 'adult activity' exception for minor negligence in Oregon. By distinguishing a low-speed golf cart on private property from an automobile on public highways, the court rejected a bright-line rule that would treat all motorized vehicles as inherently adult activities. The ruling establishes a fact-specific, contextual analysis focusing on the vehicle's nature, its typical use, the location of operation, and any licensing requirements. This precedent will guide future cases involving minors and other recreational motorized vehicles, requiring courts to assess the specific risks and qualifications of the activity rather than applying a blanket standard.
