## Facts

- Joseph Charbonneau, as administrator of his three-year-old son Robert’s estate, brought a wrongful-death negligence action after Robert was struck and killed by an automobile.
- The automobile was owned by Colin MacRury and operated at the time by his seventeen-year-old son, Elwood MacRury, a duly licensed driver.
- At trial, the court nonsuited the claim against the owner, Colin, leaving the case to proceed only against Elwood as the driver.
- The jury was first instructed on the ordinary-prudence standard; the court then supplemented the charge to state that Elwood’s conduct should be judged by the average conduct of persons of his age and experience.
- The plaintiff excepted to the supplemental instruction, arguing Elwood should be held to an adult standard of care because he was the primary tortfeasor and was licensed to drive.
- The jury returned a verdict for Elwood, and the plaintiff appealed based on the instruction on the standard of care for a minor defendant.

## Issues

1. In a negligence action alleging primary negligence, must a minor defendant be held to the adult reasonable-person standard, or may the fact of minority (age and experience) be treated as part of the circumstances defining reasonable care?
2. Does a minor’s statutory eligibility for a driver’s license require applying an adult standard of care to the minor’s driving conduct?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire overruled the plaintiff’s exceptions and entered judgment for Elwood, affirming the defense verdict.
- The court held that, whether a minor is charged with primary or contributory negligence, the minor is judged by reasonable conduct under all the circumstances, including the minor’s stage of development and lack of experience.
- The court upheld as proper the instruction directing the jury to judge Elwood’s conduct by the average conduct of persons of his age and experience.
- The court rejected the argument that driver-licensing statutes amount to a legislative determination that licensed minors possess adult maturity for negligence purposes.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence is measured by reasonable conduct in view of all the circumstances; for minors, age, development, and experience are circumstances that must be considered in applying the general reasonable-care standard.
- The same age-adjusted approach applies whether the minor is alleged to have been primarily negligent or contributorily negligent; the standard does not change based on the party’s procedural posture.
- Motor-vehicle licensing eligibility establishes legal permission and minimum competence to operate a vehicle, but it does not constitute a certification of adult mental maturity that eliminates consideration of minority.
- A jury instruction is not reversible error if it is substantially correct and not likely to confuse or mislead the jury, even if it restates the reasonable-care standard in age-specific terms for a minor defendant.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense verdict in a wrongful-death action by holding that a seventeen-year-old licensed driver’s conduct is assessed under the reasonable-care standard as applied to a person of similar age and experience, and that licensing statutes do not require imposing an adult standard of care on minors.


Charbonneau v. MacRury, 84 N.H. 501, 153 A. 457 (1931)