Yes. A teenager driving a snowmobile must be as careful as an adult. Normally, the law judges kids by what a typical kid their age would do. But the court made an exception here because driving a powerful snowmobile is a very dangerous activity that's usually for adults. When kids do dangerous 'adult' things, it's fair to expect them to follow adult safety rules to protect everyone around them. This rule doesn't apply to normal kid activities like playing in a park, but it does for operating heavy machinery.

Yes, I think a kid driving a snowmobile should have to be as careful as a grown-up. Driving a fast, heavy machine like that is super dangerous, and it's usually something only adults do. I believe that when kids do risky grown-up things, they can't just go by kid rules anymore. They have to be extra careful like an adult would, so they don't put themselves and others in danger. This rule still lets kids be kids and have fun without grown-up expectations most of the time. But it also tells them they shouldn't do really unsafe adult things. When they do, they have to act like adults so everyone stays safe.

Yes. A kid driving a snowmobile should have to be as careful as a grown-up. Driving a fast, heavy machine like that is super dangerous, and it's usually something only adults do. When kids do risky grown-up things, they can't just go by kid rules anymore. They have to be extra careful like an adult would, so they don't put themselves and others in danger. This rule still lets kids be kids and have fun without grown-up expectations most of the time. But it also tells them they shouldn't do really unsafe adult things. When they do, they have to act like adults so everyone stays safe.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <opinion type="majority"> <author id="b439-5"> Uttek, C.J. </author> An action seeking damages for personal injuries was brought on behalf of Kelly Robinson who lost full use of a thumb in a snowmobile accident when she was 11 years of age. The petitioner, Billy Anderson, 13 years of age at the time of the accident, was the driver of the snowmobile. After a jury verdict in favor of Anderson, the trial court ordered a new trial. The single issue on appeal is whether a minor operating a snowmobile is to be held to an adult standard of care. The trial court failed to instruct the jury as to that standard and ordered a new trial because it believed the jury should have been so instructed. We agree and affirm the order granting a new trial. The trial court instructed the jury under WPI 10.05 that: <blockquote id="b439-8"> In considering the claimed negligence of a child, you are instructed that it is the duty of a child to exercise the same care that a reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, maturity, training and experience would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. </blockquote> Respondent properly excepted to the giving of this instruction and to the court's failure to give an adult standard of care. The question of what standard of care should apply to acts of children has a long historical background. Traditionally, a flexible standard of care has been used to determine if children's actions were negligent. Under some circumstances, however, courts have developed a rationale for applying an adult standard. In the courts' search for a uniform standard of behavior to use in determining whether or not a person's conduct has fallen below minimal acceptable standards, the law has developed a fictitious person, the "reasonable man of ordinary prudence." That term was first used in Vaughan v. Menlove, 132 Eng. Rep. 490 (1837). *412 Exceptions to the reasonable person standard developed when the individual whose conduct was alleged to have been negligent suffered from some physical impairment, such as blindness, deafness, or lameness. Courts also found it necessary, as a practical matter, to depart considerably from the objective standard when dealing with children's behavior. Children are traditionally encouraged to pursue childhood activities without the same burdens and responsibilities with which adults must contend. See Bahr, Tort Law and the Games Kids Play, 23 S.D.L. Rev. 275 (1978). As a result, courts evolved a special standard of care to measure a child's negligence in a particular situation. In Roth v. Union Depot Co., 13 Wash. 525, 43 P. 641 (1896), Washington joined "the overwhelming weight of authority" in distinguishing between the capacity of a child and that of an adult. As the court then stated, at page 544: <blockquote id="b440-5"> [I]t would be a monstrous doctrine to hold that a child of inexperience — and experience can come only with years — should be held to the same degree of care in avoiding danger as a person of mature years and accumulated experience. </blockquote> The court went on to hold, at page 545: <blockquote id="b440-7"> The care or caution required is according to the capacity of the child, and this is to be determined ordinarily by the age of the child. </blockquote> <blockquote id="b440-8"> ". . .a child is held . . . only to the exercise of such degree of care and discretion as is reasonably to be expected from children of his age." </blockquote> The current law in this state is fairly reflected in WPI 10.05, given in this case. In the past we have always compared a child's conduct to that expected of a reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, maturity, training and experience. This case is the first to consider the question of a child's liability for injuries sustained as a result of his or her operation of a motorized vehicle or participation in an inherently dangerous activity. Courts in other jurisdictions have created an excep *413 tion to the special child standard because of the apparent injustice that would occur if a child who caused injury while engaged in certain dangerous activities were permitted to defend himself by saying that other children similarly situated would not have exercised a degree of care higher than his, and he is, therefore, not liable for his tort. Some courts have couched the exception in terms of children engaging in an activity which is normally one for adults only. See, e.g., Dellwo v. Pearson, 259 Minn. 452, 107 N.W.2d 859, 97 A.L.R.2d 866 (1961) (operation of a motorboat). We believe a better rationale is that when the activity a child engages in is inherently dangerous, as is the operation of powerful mechanized vehicles, the child should be held to an adult standard of care. Such a rule protects the need of children to be children but at the same time discourages immature individuals from engaging in inherently dangerous activities. Children will still be free to enjoy traditional childhood activities without being held to an adult standard of care. Although accidents sometimes occur as the result of such activities, they are not activities generally considered capable of resulting in "grave danger to others and to the minor himself if the care used in the course of the activity drops below that care which the reasonable and prudent adult would use ..." Daniels v. Evans, 107 N.H. 407, 408, 224 A.2d 63 (1966). Other courts adopting the adult standard of care for children engaged in adult activities have emphasized the hazards to the public if the rule is otherwise. We agree with the Minnesota Supreme Court's language in its decision in Dellwo v. Pearson, supra at 457-58: <blockquote id="b441-6"> Certainly in the circumstances of modern life, where vehicles moved by powerful motors are readily available and frequently operated by immature individuals, we should be skeptical of a rule that would allow motor vehicles to be operated to the hazard of the public with less than the normal minimum degree of care and competence. </blockquote> *414 Dellwo applied the adult standard to a 12-year-old defendant operating a motorboat. Other jurisdictions have applied the adult standard to minors engaged in analogous activities. Goodfellow v. Coggburn, 98 Idaho 202, 203-04, 560 P.2d 873 (1977) (minor operating tractor); Williams v. Esaw, 214 Kan. 658, 668, 522 P.2d 950 (1974) (minor operating motorcycle); Perricone v. DiBartolo, 14 Ill. App. 3d 514, 520, 302 N.E.2d 637 (1973) (minor operating gasoline-powered minibike); Krahn v. LaMeres, 483 P.2d 522, 525-26 (Wyo. 1971) (minor operating automobile). The holding of minors to an adult standard of care when they operate motorized vehicles is gaining approval from an increasing number of courts and commentators. See generally Comment, Capacity of Minors to be Chargeable with Negligence and Their Standard of Care, 57 Neb. L. Rev. 763, 770-71 (1978); Comment, Recommended: An Objective Standard of Care for Minors in Nebraska, 46 Neb. L. Rev. 699, 703-05 (1967). The operation of a snowmobile likewise requires adult care and competence. Currently 2.2 million snowmobiles are in operation in the United States. 9 BNA Envir. Rptr. 876 [1978 Current Developments]. Studies show that collisions and other snowmobile accidents claim hundreds of casualties each year and that the incidence of accidents is particularly high among inexperienced operators. See Note, Snowmobiles — A Legislative Program, 1972 Wis. L. Rev. 477, 489 n.58. At the time of the accident, the 13-year-old petitioner had operated snowmobiles for about 2 years. When the injury occurred, petitioner was operating a 30-horsepower snowmobile at speeds of 10 to 20 miles per hour. The record indicates that the machine itself was capable of 65 miles per hour. Because petitioner was operating a powerful motorized vehicle, he should be held to the standard of care ánd conduct expected of an adult. *415 The order granting a new trial is affirmed. <judges id="b443-5"> Rosellini, Stafford, Wright, Brachtenbach, Horowitz, Dolliver, and Hicks, JJ., and Ryan, J. Pro Tern., concur. </judges> </opinion>

—thirteen-year-old operating snowmobile, which is an inherently dangerous activity, held to adult standard of care

We believe a better rationale is that when the activity a child engages in is inherently dangerous, as is the operation of powerful mechanized vehicles, the child should be held to an adult standard of care

The underlying rationale is that such a policy will discourage children from engaging in inherently dangerous activities while still allowing the child to enjoy traditional childhood activities without being held to the adult standard of care

In the courts' search for a uniform standard of behavior to use in determining whether or not a person's conduct has fallen below minimal acceptable standards, the law has developed a fictitious person, the `reasonable man of ordinary prudence

It is a well-established principle of tort law that a minor participating in an adult activity, such as operating a motor vehicle, is held to the same standard of care as an adult.[5] See

Washington has long recognized the special standard of care applicable to children: a child's conduct is measured by the conduct of a reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, maturity, training and experience.

Such a rule protects the need of children to be children but at the same time discourages immature individuals from engaging in inherently dangerous activities

Most jurisdictions that have considered the matter have adopted the position reflected in the Third Restatement, whereby minors may be held to the reasonable adult standard if they caused injuries while engaging in certain adult activities, such as operating motorized vehicles.

Comparing the student briefs. All three sample briefs are of good quality, no surprise since they came from three top law students. Are they exquisite works of art? No, but case briefs don' t have to be. In fact, the more perfect the case-brief composition, the more likely the student spent too much time on it. All three students got the job done. Note one important quality all …

Yes. A minor operating a snowmobile is to be held to an adult standard of care. While the traditional rule holds children to a standard of care of a reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, and experience, an exception applies for certain activities. The court adopts the rationale that when a child engages in an inherently dangerous activity, the child should be held to an adult standard of care. This rule protects the public from the hazards of powerful mechanized vehicles operated by immature individuals, while still allowing children to be children in traditional, less dangerous activities. The operation of a powerful motorized vehicle like a snowmobile is an inherently dangerous activity that requires adult care and competence. Therefore, the minor operator should be held to the standard of care and conduct expected of a reasonable adult.

Yes, a minor operating a snowmobile should be held to an adult standard of care because operating a powerful motorized vehicle is an inherently dangerous activity that requires adult care and competence. I believe the traditional child standard is inapplicable in such circumstances. When children engage in activities generally considered capable of resulting in grave danger to others and themselves if care drops below that of a reasonable and prudent adult, they should be held to the adult standard. This rule still allows children freedom to enjoy traditional childhood activities without the imposition of an adult standard, but discourages them from participating in inherently dangerous activities like operating snowmobiles. Applying the adult standard to minors operating motorized vehicles protects the public from the hazards that could result if a lesser standard of care was permitted.

Yes, a minor operating a snowmobile should be held to an adult standard of care because operating a powerful motorized vehicle is an inherently dangerous activity that requires adult care and competence. The traditional child standard is inapplicable in such circumstances. When children engage in activities generally considered capable of resulting in grave danger to others and themselves if care drops below that of a reasonable and prudent adult, they should be held to the adult standard. This rule still allows children freedom to enjoy traditional childhood activities without the imposition of an adult standard, but discourages them from participating in inherently dangerous activities like operating snowmobiles. Applying the adult standard to minors operating motorized vehicles protects the public from the hazards that could result if a lesser standard of care was permitted.

Robinson v. Lindsay

Premium Feature

Rule of Law:

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

Premium Content

Issue:

Opinions:

Majority - Uttek, C.J.

Analysis:

Gunnerbot