Peterson v. Taylor
316 N.W.2d 869 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A child's capacity for contributory negligence is not determined by arbitrary age-based presumptions. Instead, it is a question of fact, and the child's conduct is measured against the standard of a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience under similar circumstances.
Facts:
- Seven-year-old David Peterson and his younger sister went to their neighbors', the Taylors', property while no one was home.
- Peterson, carrying matches he had taken earlier, decided to build a fire on a concrete slab in the Taylors' backyard.
- After the wind extinguished his first fire, Peterson entered the Taylors' unlocked storage shed by standing on his toes to slide a bolt located 57 inches high.
- Inside the shed, Peterson found cans of gasoline, confirmed their contents by smelling one, and threw a lit match into it.
- When the fire in the first can seemed to die out, Peterson retrieved a second can and accidentally spilled some of its contents on his pants.
- Peterson's gasoline-soaked pants ignited, causing him to suffer serious burns over the lower half of his body.
- Peterson had been told not to go onto the Taylors' property when they were absent and knew they would not have permitted him to enter the shed.
- Peterson was aware that gasoline was flammable, had considered the possibility of being burned, and had been previously warned by his mother about the dangers of playing with fire.
Procedural Posture:
- David Peterson, by his mother as next friend, sued the Taylors for negligence in an Iowa trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, the Taylors.
- The plaintiff, David Peterson, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Iowa law continue to recognize a legal presumption that a child under the age of fourteen is incapable of contributory negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Allbee
No. Iowa law no longer recognizes any presumptions regarding the capacity of children for negligence or contributory negligence. The court abrogates the common law rule that established a conclusive presumption of incapacity for children under seven and a rebuttable presumption for those between seven and fourteen. The court reasoned that these presumptions were based on a dubious analogy to criminal law and are no longer necessary now that the defendant bears the burden of proving contributory negligence. Adhering to the majority of jurisdictions and the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court holds that a child's capacity for negligence is a question of fact for the jury, which should judge the child's conduct against the standard of a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience.
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally alters Iowa negligence law by replacing a rigid, age-based framework with a flexible, fact-specific standard for child contributory negligence. By abandoning the common law presumptions, the court aligns Iowa with the modern majority rule and the Restatement (Second) of Torts. This shift increases the jury's role in determining liability in cases involving minors, as the capacity of a child plaintiff to perceive and avoid risk becomes a subjective inquiry based on evidence rather than a matter of legal presumption. Consequently, it may be more difficult for either party to obtain summary judgment on the issue of a child's contributory negligence.
Unlock the full brief for Peterson v. Taylor