Facts
- In May 1987, David R. Strait was sixteen years old and rode in a pickup truck driven by twenty-one-year-old Terry Crary with other teenagers.
- Crary bought beer and other intoxicants for the teenagers; the teenagers became intoxicated while Crary remained sober and continued driving on country roads.
- While Crary drove within the speed limit, Strait, seated in the front passenger seat, attempted to climb out the passenger window to join others in the truck bed.
- Strait fell from the vehicle, and the truck ran over his leg, breaking it.
- Crary did not summon police or an ambulance; he instead placed Strait back in the truck and drove him to the hospital, allegedly causing additional pain and discomfort.
- Strait and his parents sued Crary and insurers for negligence.
- At trial, Strait requested jury instructions applying the “special” child standard of care for purposes of assessing Strait’s comparative negligence.
- The trial court refused, effectively treating Strait’s conduct as subject to an adult standard under an “adult activity” theory.
- The jury apportioned negligence 61% to Strait and 39% to Crary, resulting in dismissal of Strait’s personal-injury claims under comparative negligence.
Issues
- Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the special standard of care applicable to children when assessing a sixteen-year-old plaintiff’s comparative negligence.
- Whether the adult-activity exception justified holding the minor to an adult standard of care based on his conduct as a passenger attempting to move from the cab to the truck bed.
Decision
- The court of appeals reversed the judgment dismissing Strait’s personal-injury claims.
- The trial court committed reversible error by refusing to give the requested child-standard-of-care instructions.
- The adult-activity exception did not apply to Strait’s conduct in attempting to climb from the cab to the truck bed.
- The case was remanded for a new trial limited to liability issues.
Legal Principles
- A minor’s conduct in negligence and comparative negligence is generally measured by the care a reasonable child of like age, intelligence, and experience would use under similar circumstances.
- The adult-activity exception is narrowly confined to activities typically reserved to adults, such as operating a motor vehicle, and should not be expanded to ordinary risky behavior by minors.
- An instructional error on the applicable standard of care is prejudicial when it likely misleads the jury on comparative negligence apportionment and affects the verdict.
Conclusion
Because the jury was not instructed to evaluate the sixteen-year-old plaintiff’s conduct under the child standard of care, and because his conduct did not fall within the narrow adult-activity exception, the liability verdict was unreliable; the dismissal judgment was reversed and the matter returned for a new trial on liability.