Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantnegligencetrialjury instructions

negligencetestimonyappellant

Related Cases

Purtle v. Shelton, 251 Ark. 519, 474 S.W.2d 123, 47 A.L.R.3d 609

Facts

Jerry Purtle, a 16-year-old minor, was injured in a hunting accident during the 1969 deer hunting season while hunting with 17-year-old Kenneth Shelton. The two boys had been warned to make their presence known while in the woods. However, Jerry inadvertently walked toward Kenneth's stand without announcing himself, leading Kenneth to mistakenly fire at what he thought was a deer. The bullet ricocheted, causing serious injuries to Jerry's eyes. The jury attributed equal negligence to both boys, resulting in no recovery for Jerry.

There were some conflicts in the testimony, but the salient facts are not really in dispute.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the standard of care applicable to minors engaged in hunting with a high-powered rifle.

The appellant first contends that the court should have instructed the jury that Kenneth, in using a high-powered rifle, was required to use the same degree of care that would be observed by an adult in like circumstances.

Rule

The court ruled that a minor engaged in an activity that is not normally undertaken solely by adults is not held to the same standard of care as an adult. The standard of care for minors is that of a reasonably careful minor of similar age and intelligence.

We cannot accept that argument. To begin with, the motor vehicle rule was not adopted, as our opinion in Harrelson reflects, solely because the driving of an automobile entails danger to others.

Analysis

The court analyzed the facts and determined that deer hunting is not an activity exclusively engaged in by adults, as minors can legally hunt without a license at a young age. Therefore, the court concluded that the standard of care applied to Kenneth Shelton, as a minor, was appropriate and did not require the same degree of care expected from an adult. The court also noted that the instructions given to the jury regarding reasonable care were consistent with established legal principles.

We are unable to find any authority holding that a minor should be held to an adult standard of care merely because he engages in a dangerous activity.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that there was no error in the jury instructions regarding the standard of care for minors in this context.

Affirmed.

Who won?

The defendants, Kenneth Shelton and his father, prevailed in the case because the court found that the jury's attribution of equal negligence was supported by the evidence and that the standard of care applied was appropriate for minors.

The jury attributed half the negligence to Jerry Purtle and half to young Shelton; so there was no recovery.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Scott v. Bradford, 606 P.2d 554, 1979 OK 165

Henson ex rel. Hunt v. International Paper Co., 374 S.C. 375, 650 S.E.2d 74

Cudney v. Midcontinent Airlines, 363 Mo. 922, 254 S.W.2d 662

Yeakley v. Doss, 370 Ark. 122, 257 S.W.3d 895

Herrick v. Humphrey Hardware Co., 73 Neb. 809, 103 N.W. 685, 119 Am.St.Rep. 917, 11 Am.Ann.Cas. 201