## Facts

- An 11-year-old child was injured while riding an inner tube being pulled by a snowmobile.
- The snowmobile was driven by a 13-year-old and owned by adult defendants.
- The child suffered permanent impairment to one thumb.
- The injured child, through a guardian ad litem, sued for negligence.
- At trial, the jury was instructed to evaluate the 13-year-old driver’s conduct under a child standard of care tied to age, intelligence, maturity, training, and experience.
- The jury returned a defense verdict for the minor driver.
- The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, ruling the jury should have been instructed to apply an adult standard of care to the minor’s operation of the snowmobile.
- The defendants sought review of the order granting a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether a 13-year-old operating a snowmobile should be held to an adult reasonable-person standard of care rather than the ordinary child standard of care in a negligence action.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the order granting a new trial.
- The court held that a minor operating a snowmobile is held to the same standard of care as an adult.
- Because the jury was instructed under a child standard of care, the trial court acted within its discretion in ordering a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A child’s negligence is generally measured by the care a reasonably careful child of like age, intelligence, maturity, training, 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, particularly the operation of powerful motorized vehicles.
- When the adult-activity exception applies, the minor is judged by the ordinary adult reasonable-person standard of care.
- Giving the jury an incorrect standard of care can justify granting a new trial.

## Conclusion

The court required that a negligence claim arising from a 13-year-old’s operation of a snowmobile be tried under an adult standard of care, affirming a new trial because the original jury instructions improperly applied the child standard.


Robinson v. Lindsay, 598 P.2d 392 (Wash. 1979)