LEARUE BY NEXT FRIEND LEARUE v. State
757 S.W. 2d. 3 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A minor over the age of fourteen is presumed capable of exercising care for their own safety to the same standard as an adult. If such a minor fails to exercise ordinary care for their own safety, their resulting contributory negligence is a complete bar to recovery from a negligent defendant.
Facts:
- William Douglas Learue, a 14-year-old boy, sustained personal injuries at a swimming facility in Chickasaw State Park, which is maintained by the State of Tennessee.
- The facility featured a concrete retaining wall along the edge of a lake, where the water depth was two to three feet.
- There were no signs posted indicating the water depth or prohibiting diving from the retaining wall.
- Learue, who considered himself a strong swimmer, checked the water depth and the condition of the lake bottom on his first day at the park.
- For a week prior to the accident, Learue swam twice daily and routinely dove from the retaining wall.
- Learue observed the state-employed lifeguards on duty also diving from the same retaining wall.
- On July 18, 1983, Learue performed a dive from the wall, struck the bottom of the lake, and was seriously injured.
Procedural Posture:
- William Douglas Learue filed a claim for personal injuries against the State of Tennessee in the Tennessee Claims Commission, a court of first instance.
- The Claims Commission found that the State was negligent but that Learue was contributorily negligent, which barred his recovery and denied his claim.
- Learue, as the claimant-appellant, appealed the Commission's decision to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
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 14-year-old claimant who is injured after diving into shallow water contributorily negligent, thereby barring his recovery from the State for its negligence in failing to prohibit such diving?
Opinions:
Majority - Crawford, J.
Yes. A 14-year-old claimant who fails to exercise ordinary care for his own safety is guilty of contributory negligence which bars his recovery. The law presumes that a child over the age of fourteen is capable of exercising care for his own safety to the same extent as an adult. In this case, Learue was an experienced swimmer who was aware of the shallow depth of the water, having personally checked it. The record indicates he recognized the importance of knowing the water's depth. The commission correctly concluded that the proximate cause of the injury was not the State's failure to warn, but Learue's own failure to perform a shallow dive. Because Learue failed to exercise ordinary care for his own safety, his contributory negligence was a direct and proximate cause of his injury, thus barring his claim against the State.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the harshness of the traditional contributory negligence doctrine, which acts as a complete bar to a plaintiff's recovery. It reinforces the legal standard in Tennessee (at the time) that minors over the age of 14 are presumptively held to an adult standard of care for their own safety. The court's decision emphasizes that even if a defendant is clearly negligent (as the State was in failing to prohibit diving), a plaintiff's own negligence, if a proximate cause of the injury, will prevent any recovery. This contrasts sharply with the comparative fault systems adopted by most jurisdictions, which would reduce the plaintiff's recovery rather than eliminate it entirely.
