Purtle v. Shelton
474 S.W.2d 123 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A minor is held to an adult standard of care only when engaged in an activity that is both dangerous to others and normally undertaken only by adults. Deer hunting, while dangerous, is not an activity normally engaged in only by adults, so a minor participating in it is held to the standard of a reasonably careful minor of the same age and intelligence.
Facts:
- Jerry Purtle, age 16, and Kenneth Shelton, Jr., age 17, went on an early morning deer hunt at a deer camp.
- L. D. McMullen, who took the youths hunting, cautioned both to make their presence known in the woods and to not shoot without positively identifying their target as a deer.
- While it was still dark, Purtle walked toward Shelton's hunting stand without making his presence known.
- Believing he saw a deer, Shelton fired his 30.06 rifle.
- The bullet struck a tree, fragmented, and ricocheted, causing serious injuries to both of Purtle's eyes.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerry Purtle's father, as next friend, filed a personal injury action against Kenneth Shelton and Kenneth Shelton, Jr., in the trial court.
- The trial court instructed the jury to judge Kenneth Shelton, Jr.'s, conduct by the standard of care applicable to a minor of his age and intelligence.
- The jury returned a verdict finding both Jerry Purtle and Kenneth Shelton, Jr., 50% negligent.
- Under the applicable comparative fault statute, the 50/50 finding resulted in a judgment for the defendants, with no recovery for Purtle.
- Purtle (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, arguing the trial court gave an improper jury instruction on the standard of care.
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 the standard of care for a minor engaged in the dangerous activity of hunting with a high-powered rifle rise to that of a reasonably careful adult?
Opinions:
Majority - George Rose Smith
No. A minor engaged in hunting with a high-powered rifle is not held to an adult standard of care. The court reaffirmed the two-part test established in Jackson v. McCuiston, which holds that a minor is held to an adult standard only when engaged in an activity that is (a) dangerous to others and (b) normally engaged in only by adults. The court conceded that deer hunting is a dangerous activity, thus satisfying the first part of the test. However, it concluded that deer hunting is not an activity normally engaged in only by adults, noting that state regulations permit young children to hunt and that it is common knowledge that minors frequently use firearms for hunting. The court distinguished this from operating a motor vehicle, an activity which requires licensing and examination, making it more clearly an adult activity. The court expressed reluctance to judicially create a new rule for hunting, preferring to leave such line-drawing to the legislature.
Dissenting - John A. Fogleman
Yes. A minor using a high-powered, dangerous rifle should be held to the standard of care of an adult. The dissent argues that the majority's distinction between driving a car and hunting with a deadly weapon is illogical and that public safety demands an adult standard in this context. It characterizes the high-powered rifle as a 'dangerous instrumentality,' arguably more so than an automobile. The dissent finds the court's judicial notice 'astigmatic' for viewing driving and operating farm equipment as adult activities while viewing hunting with a deadly weapon as a common youth pastime. It contends that the increasing danger and prevalence of hunting warrant extending the adult-activity exception to this case.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the two-part test for the 'adult activity' exception to the minor standard of care, requiring that the activity be both dangerous and normally reserved for adults. By refusing to classify deer hunting as an adult-only activity, the court narrowed the scope of the exception established in prior cases involving motor vehicles and farm equipment. The ruling demonstrates judicial restraint, signaling that further expansion of this exception is a matter for legislative action rather than judicial line-drawing. This case serves as a key precedent for future negligence cases involving minors and dangerous recreational activities, making it more difficult to hold them to an adult standard of care outside of licensed or highly regulated contexts.
