Strait v. Crary
496 N.W.2d 634, 173 Wis. 2d 377, 1992 Wisc. App. LEXIS 902 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A minor is held to the standard of care of a reasonably prudent child of the same age, intelligence, and experience, unless the minor is engaged in a licensed, 'adults-only' activity, and the policy of protecting innocent victims is implicated.
Facts:
- Terry Crary, an adult, purchased beer and other intoxicants for sixteen-year-old David Strait and several other teenagers.
- Crary, who remained sober, drove the intoxicated group of teenagers around the countryside in his pickup truck.
- While Crary was driving, Strait, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, attempted to climb out of the window to join others in the open bed of the truck.
- In his attempt to move to the truck bed, Strait fell from the moving vehicle.
- The truck then ran over Strait's leg, causing a fracture.
- Instead of calling for an ambulance, Crary picked up the injured Strait, placed him back in the truck, and drove him to the hospital, causing additional pain.
Procedural Posture:
- David Strait and his parents sued Terry Crary for negligence in a state trial court.
- At the conclusion of a jury trial, Strait's attorney requested jury instructions on the special standard of care for children, but the trial court denied the request.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Strait 61% causally negligent and Crary 39% causally negligent.
- Based on the verdict, the trial court entered a judgment dismissing Strait's action.
- Strait (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury on the special standard of care applicable to a minor plaintiff, thereby holding the sixteen-year-old plaintiff to an adult standard of care for engaging in risky behavior?
Opinions:
Majority - Eich, C.J.
Yes. The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the special standard of care applicable to children. A minor is generally not held to an adult standard of care unless they are engaged in an 'adults-only' or licensed activity. The court reasoned that the exception to the general rule is narrow and based on a public policy of protecting innocent victims. Here, Strait was not engaged in a licensed activity like driving a car, and there was no 'innocent victim' of his conduct, as the dispute was with Crary, the adult who provided the alcohol and was driving the vehicle. The court's failure to give the requested instruction likely misled the jury in its crucial task of comparing the parties' negligence, which constitutes prejudicial error requiring a new trial on liability.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for applying the 'adult activity' exception to the general rule that minors are held to a subjective standard of care. The court clarifies that the exception is not triggered merely by dangerous or illegal conduct, but is limited to activities that are typically licensed and reserved for adults, such as operating a motor vehicle. Furthermore, the analysis highlights the public policy rationale behind the exception—the protection of innocent third parties—which must be implicated for the exception to apply. This case serves as a strong precedent for holding minors to a child's standard of care in negligence comparisons unless the specific, narrow criteria for the adult activity exception are met.
Unlock the full brief for Strait v. Crary