## Facts

- A 14-year-old owned a motorized golf cart (top speed about 12 mph) used on her grandparents’ private property.
- The grandfather taught the minor how to drive the cart; the grandparents set property-boundary limits but otherwise allowed use.
- Neighborhood children were permitted to drive the cart on the property; the minor imposed her own rule that children under 12 could not drive unaccompanied.
- On June 15, 2000, the minor and a 16-year-old neighbor were near the cart when an 11-year-old boy asked to drive it.
- The minor allowed the 11-year-old to drive the cart unaccompanied, although previously she had been present when he drove.
- Returning up the driveway, the 11-year-old accidentally pressed the accelerator instead of the brake and struck both girls, fracturing the 16-year-old’s leg and requiring surgery.
- The injured teen sued for negligent entrustment, alleging the owner was negligent in permitting the 11-year-old to drive.
- At trial, the jury was instructed to evaluate the owner’s conduct under the ordinary standard of care for minors; the jury found for the defendant.

## Issues

1. Whether a minor who operates and entrusts a motorized golf cart is held to the ordinary minor standard of care or to an adult standard because the conduct involves an “adult activity.”
2. Whether entrusting a motorized golf cart to another person is itself an “adult activity” requiring adult qualifications, triggering an adult standard of care.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for the defendant.
- The trial court did not err by instructing the jury to apply the minor standard of care.
- Operating a low-speed golf cart on private property, on this record, was not an “adult activity” that generally requires adult qualifications.
- Entrustment of the golf cart to another child likewise did not transform the conduct into an adult activity requiring adult qualifications.

## Legal Principles

- A minor’s negligence is ordinarily measured by the care a reasonably careful child of similar age, intelligence, and experience would use under similar circumstances.
- The adult standard of care applies to minors only when they engage in activities normally undertaken only by adults and for which adult qualifications are required; the exception is construed narrowly.
- The presence of a motor or some degree of danger does not alone make an activity an “adult activity.”
- For negligent entrustment claims involving minors, the applicable standard of care turns on whether the underlying activity being enabled is one that generally requires adult qualifications; entrustment is not automatically treated as adult conduct.

## Conclusion

The court held that a minor’s operation of and permission to use a low-speed golf cart on private property was not an adult-only activity requiring adult qualifications; therefore, the minor standard of care governed, and the defense verdict was affirmed.


Hudson-Connor v. Putney, 192 Or. App. 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2004)