Facts
- Gregory Schomp, age 17½, was riding his bicycle near his home in Watchung, New Jersey.
- On June 16, 1981, Gregory rode down Washington Drive and turned right onto Scott Drive in a residential development.
- Gregory testified he rode about two feet from the curb at roughly 10 m.p.h., looking straight ahead and lightly braking to keep a steady speed.
- Gregory testified there were no cars traveling or parked between the turn and the point of impact.
- The Wilkens residence was on Scott Drive; its driveway sloped down sharply to the street and was bordered by foliage that limited visibility to a rider approaching from Washington Drive.
- As Gregory proceeded down a slight decline on Scott Drive, his bicycle collided with a bicycle ridden by David Wilkens, a minor, who was exiting the driveway into the street.
- Gregory testified he did not see David before the collision and heard no warning.
- David Wilkens presented no testimony or other evidence at trial.
- Gregory and his father, John Schomp, sued David Wilkens (appearing through a guardian ad litem, Philip Leen) and also named David’s parents, Frederick and Virginia Wilkens.
- At the close of plaintiffs’ proofs, the trial judge dismissed the claims against Frederick and Virginia Wilkens.
- The trial court charged the jury that a minor’s standard of care is that exercised by a person of similar age, judgment, and experience.
- The trial court refused plaintiffs’ request to charge the jury regarding the effect of motor-vehicle statutes on bicyclists and to evaluate David’s conduct under an adult standard.
- The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action, and plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
- Whether a minor operating a bicycle on a public street must be held to the adult reasonable-person standard because New Jersey traffic statutes regulate bicyclists in a manner similar to motor vehicles.
- Whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing plaintiffs’ requested jury instruction concerning violations of motor-vehicle statutes applicable to bicyclists.
Decision
- The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment entered on the jury’s no-cause verdict.
- The court held that the traditional child standard of care applies to a minor riding a bicycle, even though traffic laws regulate bicyclists.
- The court concluded the trial judge did not err by charging the jury to measure the minor defendant’s conduct by the care of a child of similar age, judgment, and experience.
- The court also found no reversible error in the refusal to give plaintiffs’ requested statutory-violation instruction in a way that would effectively substitute an adult standard for the child standard.
Legal Principles
- A child’s negligence is generally measured by the care a reasonably careful child of similar age, judgment, and experience would use under similar circumstances.
- The fact that bicycles are subject to rules of the road does not, without a clear legislative statement, replace New Jersey’s common-law child standard of care in civil negligence cases.
- Courts distinguish between ordinary childhood activities (such as bicycle riding) and activities typically reserved for adults (such as operating motor vehicles); ordinary bicycle riding does not require an adult negligence standard for minors.
- Statutory duties and safety rules may be relevant to whether conduct was careless, but they do not automatically convert the governing standard of care from the child standard to the adult reasonable-person standard.
- Even if negligent conduct is shown, liability still requires proof that the negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
Conclusion
The Appellate Division left intact a defense verdict in a bicycle-collision case, holding that a minor bicyclist’s conduct is judged by the child standard—care expected of a child of similar age, judgment, and experience—and that New Jersey’s traffic statutes regulating bicycles do not, by themselves, require an adult-standard negligence charge or a jury instruction that would impose one.