Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

trial
damagesliabilityappealtrialverdictsustained

Related Cases

Zafft v. Eli Lilly & Co., 676 S.W.2d 241, 53 USLW 2175
View Case »
C.C.H. v. Philadelphia Phillies, Inc., 596 Pa. 23, 940 A.2d 336
View Case »
Carter v. Kinney, 896 S.W.2d 926
View Case »
Kelly v. Berg, 365 Wis.2d 83, 2015 WI App 69, 870 N.W.2d 481
View Case »
Bank v. Mickels, 302 Neb. 1009, 926 N.W.2d 97
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Robinson v. Lindsay, 92 Wash.2d 410, 598 P.2d 392

Facts

Kelly Robinson, an 11-year-old girl, suffered severe injuries to her thumb in a snowmobile accident caused by 13-year-old Billy Anderson, who was driving the snowmobile. After a jury found in favor of Anderson, the trial court ordered a new trial, stating that the jury had not been properly instructed on the applicable standard of care for minors operating powerful vehicles. The case raised the question of whether a minor should be held to an adult standard of care when operating a snowmobile.

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.

Issue

Whether a minor operating a snowmobile is to be held to an adult standard of care.

The single issue on appeal is whether a minor operating a snowmobile is to be held to an adult standard of care.

Rule

The court held that when a child engages in inherently dangerous activities, such as operating powerful motorized vehicles, they should be held to the adult standard of care.

The court went on to hold, at page 545, 43 P. at page 647: 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.

Analysis

The court analyzed the historical context of the standard of care applicable to children, noting that while children are typically held to a standard appropriate for their age and experience, exceptions exist for inherently dangerous activities. The court emphasized that operating a snowmobile, a powerful motorized vehicle, requires a level of care and competence that aligns with adult standards due to the potential hazards involved.

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.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial, concluding that the jury should have been instructed on the adult standard of care applicable to the minor in this case.

The order granting a new trial is affirmed.

Who won?

The prevailing party was Kelly Robinson, as the court affirmed the order for a new trial, allowing her case to be reconsidered under the correct legal standard.

You must be