## Facts

- Dellwo brought a negligence action for personal injuries allegedly caused by Pearson, a minor (about 12 years old), while operating a motorboat.
- The injury arose from the motorboat’s operation near others using the waterway, resulting in harm to Dellwo (commonly described in the record as involving a line or related object being snagged or pulled as the boat passed).
- At trial, the jury was instructed to evaluate Pearson’s conduct under the child standard of care (a reasonably careful child of like age, intelligence, and experience).
- The jury returned a verdict for Pearson (or otherwise denied Dellwo full relief).
- Dellwo appealed, arguing the court should have applied the adult reasonable-care standard because Pearson was operating a motorized vehicle.

## Issues

1. Whether a minor operating a motorboat must be judged by the child standard of care or by the reasonable prudent adult standard applicable to motor-vehicle operation.
2. Whether instructing the jury to apply the child standard in this context is reversible error requiring a new trial.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court held that a minor operating a motor vehicle, including a motorboat, is held to the same standard of care as an adult engaged in the same activity.
- The trial court erred by instructing the jury to use the child standard of care.
- The judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered under the correct standard.

## Legal Principles

- Children are generally held to the care a reasonably careful child of similar age, intelligence, and experience would use under similar circumstances.
- An exception applies when a minor engages in an activity that is dangerous and typically undertaken by adults, such as operating a motorized vehicle on public roads or waterways.
- For such adult activities, the minor must meet the ordinary reasonable-care standard applicable to adults, to protect public safety and ensure uniform, predictable minimum conduct standards.
- Using a reduced child standard for motor-vehicle operation risks unfairly shifting the costs of serious harm to innocent victims and creates impractical, variable benchmarks for juries.

## Conclusion

The court adopted the adult-activity exception for minors operating motor vehicles, holding that a child who drives a motorboat must exercise the same reasonable care required of adult operators; a contrary jury instruction is reversible error warranting a new trial.


Dellwo v. Pearson, 259 Minn. 452, 107 N.W.2d 859 (Minn. 1961)