## Facts

- A seven-year-old boy, John B. Roberts, ran from behind or near an approaching buggy and crossed a much-traveled, congested city street in Owatonna, Minnesota.
- Eugene P. Ring, age seventy-seven with impaired sight and hearing, drove an automobile at about four to five miles per hour in the same area.
- Ring variously stated that he saw the boy only when the child was four or five feet from the car, and at other times that he did not see the boy at all.
- The automobile struck and injured the boy and passed over him.
- The boy’s father sued Ring for negligence; Ring asserted contributory negligence by the child.
- The jury returned a verdict for Ring after instructions that the jury could consider the boy’s age for contributory negligence and could consider Ring’s age and infirmities in evaluating his negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a jury finding that Ring was negligent in failing to stop or control the car in time to avoid striking the child.
2. What standard governs a seven-year-old’s contributory negligence.
3. Whether an adult defendant’s age and physical infirmities may lower the standard of care used to judge the defendant’s negligence.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The evidence presented a jury question on Ring’s negligence, including whether he should have seen the child sooner and whether the car could have been stopped within a short distance at the stated speed.
- The child’s contributory negligence was for the jury under a child-specific standard of care.
- The trial court erred by instructing in a manner suggesting Ring’s age and infirmities could excuse or lessen his duty of care.

## Legal Principles

- A child’s contributory negligence is measured by the care commonly exercised by an ordinary child of the same age and maturity, not by the adult reasonable-person standard.
- An adult defendant’s negligence is measured by the care of an ordinarily prudent, normal person; personal limitations such as advanced age, poor eyesight, or impaired hearing do not reduce the required standard.
- Negligence and contributory negligence generally present jury questions when the evidence permits reasonable disagreement, and misleading instructions on the applicable standards warrant a new trial.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the jury instructions improperly implied that the defendant’s age and infirmities could mitigate his negligence, even though the law holds adult defendants to an objective ordinary-prudent-person standard while applying a child-appropriate standard to a seven-year-old’s contributory negligence.


Roberts v. Ring, 143 Minn. 151, 173 N.W. 437 (Minn. 1919)