## Facts

- Aaron S. Veenstra, age 14, enrolled in a public-school driver’s education course to learn to drive to college.
- On the first day of on-road driving, Veenstra attempted a right turn at an intersection and turned too sharply toward James Stevens, who was exiting a parked vehicle.
- Veenstra testified he may have pressed the accelerator instead of the brake as the vehicle headed toward Stevens.
- The vehicle struck Stevens, causing injury.
- Stevens sued Veenstra for negligence based on careless operation of the automobile.

## Issues

1. Whether a minor operating an automobile in a driver’s education course is judged by the standard of care of a reasonably careful adult driver or by a minor’s age-capacity-experience standard.

## Decision

- The trial court instructed the jury to apply a minor’s standard of care and, under that instruction, the jury found Veenstra not negligent.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding the adult standard of care applies to minors engaged in the adult, dangerous activity of driving an automobile, including during driver’s education.
- The case was remanded for a new trial because the incorrect instruction failed to accurately present the governing law and was prejudicial.

## Legal Principles

- Minors are generally held to the care of a reasonably careful minor of similar age, mental capacity, and experience.
- A recognized exception applies when a minor engages in a dangerous activity normally undertaken by adults; in that setting, the minor is held to an adult standard of care.
- Operating a motor vehicle on public roads is an adult activity presenting significant risks; public safety and uniformity require applying the same standard to all drivers, including minors.
- Participation in a supervised driver’s education program does not change the adult nature of driving or reduce the risk to others; the adult standard still governs.
- Erroneous jury instructions on the applicable standard of care warrant reversal when the standard is central to the negligence determination and the error could affect the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court required that a minor driving an automobile, even as a student in driver’s education, be judged by the reasonable adult driver standard, and it ordered a new trial because the jury was instructed to apply the minor standard.


Stevens v. Veenstra, 226 Mich. App. 441, 573 N.W.2d 341 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997)