## Facts

- A 12-year-old plaintiff rode a bicycle north on a through street at an Oklahoma City intersection.
- A 16-year-old defendant drove an automobile west toward the intersection from a side street controlled by a stop sign.
- The bicyclist could not recall facts about how the collision occurred.
- According to the driver’s testimony, he stopped, observed the bicyclist about fifty feet away, and then entered the intersection; the bicycle struck the car behind the driver’s seat on the left side.
- The plaintiffs alleged the driver was negligent for (1) failing to keep a proper lookout and (2) failing to yield the right of way under a stop-sign duty requiring a driver to stop and yield to traffic constituting an immediate hazard.
- The defense asserted contributory negligence, unavoidable accident, and sudden emergency.
- The trial court instructed the jury to evaluate both minors’ conduct under a child standard of care (reasonably careful child of like age), rather than an adult standard.
- The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and judgment was entered accordingly.

## Issues

1. Whether a minor operating an automobile must be held to the ordinary adult standard of care, rather than a child standard of care.
2. Whether it was prejudicial error to instruct the jury that the 16-year-old driver’s conduct should be judged by a child standard of care.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that in operating an automobile, a minor is required to exercise the same standard of care as an adult.
- The trial court’s instruction applying a child standard of care to the 16-year-old driver was erroneous and prejudicial because it could reduce the driver’s legally required level of care in the jury’s negligence analysis.

## Legal Principles

- A minor who engages in an adult activity posing danger to others—specifically driving an automobile on public roads—must conform to the ordinary adult standard of care.
- Statutory driving duties imposed on “every driver” (including stop-and-yield obligations at stop signs) apply without a reduced standard for minors.
- A jury instruction that applies an incorrect standard of care to a party is reversible error when it may affect the determination of negligence.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because a 16-year-old driver must be judged by the same standard of care as an adult when operating an automobile, and instructing the jury to apply a child standard improperly lowered the driver’s legal duty.


Baxter v. Fugett, 425 P.2d 462 (Okla. 1967)