Neumann v. Shlansky
58 Misc. 2d 128, 294 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1968 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1105 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A child who engages in an inherently dangerous activity normally undertaken by adults, such as playing golf, is held to the standard of care of a reasonably prudent adult.
Facts:
- An 11-year-old boy, the defendant, was playing in a foursome with his mother and two other adults at the Harrison Country Club.
- The defendant was an experienced golfer for his age, having played two to three times a week for the previous two years.
- The plaintiff, another golfer, had just finished playing a par-three hole and was crossing a footbridge approximately 150-160 yards from the tee.
- The plaintiff was in plain view of the defendant.
- The defendant saw the plaintiff before hitting his tee shot.
- The defendant's golf ball struck the plaintiff in the knee, causing injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued the 11-year-old defendant in a trial court for negligence.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury to hold the infant defendant to the standard of care of an adult.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant moved to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, arguing the judge's instruction on the standard of care was an error of law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should an 11-year-old child engaged in the activity of playing golf be held to the same standard of care as a reasonably prudent adult?
Opinions:
Majority - Marbach, J.
Yes. A child engaging in an inherently dangerous activity that is characteristically adult, such as golf, is held to the same standard of care as a reasonably prudent adult. While the general rule holds a child to the standard of a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience, there is an exception for 'adult activities.' The court analogizes playing golf to operating a motor vehicle, motorboat, or airplane, activities for which courts have consistently applied an adult standard of care to minors. This exception is based on the inherent danger of the activity; a golf ball is a 'dangerous missile' capable of inflicting serious harm, regardless of the age of the person who hits it. Given that the defendant was an experienced player, playing with adults, and he hit the ball knowing the plaintiff was within the 'realm of foreseeable danger,' it is appropriate to hold him to an adult standard of care.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the 'adult activity' exception beyond its common application to motorized vehicles. By classifying golf as an inherently dangerous adult activity, the court establishes a precedent for applying an adult standard of care to minors in other non-motorized but high-risk recreational activities. The court's reasoning shifts the focus from whether an activity requires a license to the objective nature of the risk it poses to the public. This case will influence future negligence actions involving minors in sports like skiing, archery, or hunting, where the potential for serious injury is substantial.
