Schomp v. Wilkens
206 N.J. Super. 95, 501 A.2d 1036 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A minor bicyclist's conduct is evaluated using a child's standard of care (that of a person with similar age, judgment, and experience), but a jury must be instructed that a violation of a motor vehicle statute applicable to bicyclists is admissible as evidence of that minor's negligence.
Facts:
- On June 16, 1981, Gregory Schomp, 17.5 years old, was riding his bicycle on Scott Drive.
- Schomp was riding approximately two feet from the curb at about 10 m.p.h.
- David Wilkens, a minor, was riding his bicycle down his family's sharply declining driveway which led onto Scott Drive.
- Foliage around the Wilkens' driveway obstructed the view of the driveway from the street.
- Wilkens' bicycle exited the driveway and collided with Schomp's bicycle in the street.
- Gregory Schomp sustained injuries as a result of the collision.
- Schomp testified that he did not see or hear Wilkens approach prior to the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Gregory Schomp and his father, John Schomp, filed a negligence complaint against David Wilkens in a New Jersey trial court.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury to apply a child's standard of care to David Wilkens' conduct.
- The trial judge, over the Schomps' objection, refused to instruct the jury that a violation of motor vehicle statutes could be considered evidence of negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict of no cause for action, finding in favor of David Wilkens.
- The Schomps appealed the resulting judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
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 a trial court commit reversible error by refusing to instruct a jury that a minor bicyclist's violation of a motor vehicle statute may be considered as evidence of negligence, even when the minor is properly judged by a child's standard of care?
Opinions:
Majority - Long, J.A.D.
Yes, a trial court commits reversible error by refusing to instruct a jury that a minor bicyclist's violation of a motor vehicle statute is evidence of negligence. While bicycling is not an inherently hazardous activity requiring an adult standard of care, and a minor bicyclist is properly judged by the standard of a child of similar age, judgment, and experience, the jury must also be informed of applicable traffic statutes. The court reasoned that there is no conflict between applying a child's standard of care and instructing the jury that violating a safety statute (such as the duty to stop before entering a roadway from a driveway) can be considered evidence of negligence. New Jersey statute N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.1 explicitly subjects bicyclists to the rules of the road. The failure to provide this instruction was not harmless error, as a jury could consider the violation of a legislative standard to be significant evidence of negligence.
Analysis:
This case establishes a nuanced, two-part framework for assessing the negligence of minor bicyclists in New Jersey. It affirms that bicycling is not an inherently hazardous activity that would trigger a heightened adult standard of care under the doctrine from Goss v. Allen. However, the court carves out an important role for traffic safety statutes, holding that while the subjective child's standard applies to the minor's overall conduct, their compliance with objective statutory rules is relevant evidence for the jury to consider. This decision prevents minors from being wholly insulated by their age from the rules of the road while stopping short of treating them like adult motor vehicle operators, thus influencing future cases involving minors in regulated but non-hazardous activities.
Unlock the full brief for Schomp v. Wilkens