## Facts

- A 13-year-old newspaper errand boy rode a bicycle west on East Washington Avenue in Madison, Wisconsin, then turned north onto Pinckney Street behind an automobile driven by the defendant.
- The defendant stopped his automobile in the traffic lane near the curb to drop off clothing, leaving limited clearance between parked cars and a streetcar rail.
- The defendant opened the left-hand door to exit.
- As the boy attempted to pass, his bicycle handlebar struck the edge of the opened door, causing him to fall and suffer serious left arm injuries (dislocation and fracture) with permanent limitation of motion.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence required a finding that the 13-year-old plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, or whether negligence and contributory negligence were for the jury.
2. Whether the jury instructions correctly stated the standards of ordinary care and negligence, including the role of foreseeability in determining negligence.
3. Whether the causation instructions properly communicated legal causation without relying on potentially misleading “proximate cause” terminology.
4. Whether the $2,500 damages award for pain, suffering, and post-majority earning-capacity loss was excessive.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the verdict on liability, holding the evidence supported the findings that the defendant was negligent in lookout and in opening the door, and that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent.
- The court upheld the instructions as sufficiently accurate to guide the jury on ordinary care, negligence, and causation.
- The court held the damages award excessive by at least $1,000.
- The court remanded with directions to set a minimum amount and allow judgment for that reduced sum or, failing acceptance, to grant a new trial limited to damages.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence and contributory negligence are generally jury questions when reasonable factfinders could differ on inferences from the evidence, including inferences shaped by a child plaintiff’s age and circumstances.
- Ordinary care may be defined as the degree of care that the great mass of people would ordinarily exercise under the same or similar circumstances; negligence is conduct falling below the legal standard protecting others from unreasonable risk of injury.
- Foreseeability is relevant to determining whether conduct is negligent (unreasonable risk), but it should be distinguished from rules limiting responsibility for the consequences of negligent conduct.
- Legal causation is a legal concept, not merely physical sequence; instructions may avoid the term “proximate cause” in favor of “cause,” “legal cause,” or similar phrasing if the jury is properly directed to consider intervening responsible causes and the required causal relation.
- A damages award may be reduced when excessive; where the plaintiff’s recovery is limited to personal damages (such as pain, suffering, and post-majority earning capacity), the court may order remittitur or a new trial on damages only.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the jury’s liability determinations arising from a vehicle-door and bicycle collision, approved instructions emphasizing ordinary care and legally meaningful causation, and ordered correction of an excessive verdict through remittitur or a new trial confined to damages.


Osborne v. Montgomery, 203 Wis. 223, 234 N.W. 372 (Wis. 1931)