## Facts

- Dennis Neal Williamson, nearly 12 years old, was injured in a bicycle–automobile collision in Paducah, Kentucky.
- The collision occurred on a clear August day on Jackson Street (east–west, four lanes, preferred street) near the intersection with 29th Street (north–south).
- Williamson rode his bicycle north on 29th Street while racing another 11-year-old boy, Bruce Johnson.
- Raymond Garland drove east on Jackson Street in the lane nearest the right curb at about 20–25 mph.
- A hedge and slight embankment on the west side of 29th Street partially obstructed views for northbound 29th Street traffic and eastbound Jackson Street traffic.
- Johnson testified Williamson braked approaching Jackson Street, skidded on loose gravel, entered Jackson Street, turned east, and began pedaling; Johnson believed Williamson tried to “outrun” the approaching car.
- A police officer testified that shortly after the accident Williamson and the bicycle were found near a light pole by the south sidewalk of Jackson Street about 60 feet east of the intersection; Garland’s car was near that location, about three feet from the south curb.
- The officer observed scratches on the car’s right front fender beginning 12–18 inches behind the right headlight.
- Williamson suffered serious injuries, including a brain injury affecting his ability to recall details.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff’s proof, viewed favorably to him, provided sufficient evidence to submit Garland’s negligence to the jury rather than support a directed verdict.
2. Whether an 11-year-old could be held contributorily negligent as a matter of law, justifying removal of that issue from the jury.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the directed verdict for Garland and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held there was evidence from which a jury could infer Garland’s negligence (including failure to keep a proper lookout or to exercise reasonable care given the obstructed intersection and circumstances).
- The court held it was error to find Williamson contributorily negligent as a matter of law; at his age, contributory negligence was a jury question under the child-capacity standard.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion for directed verdict, evidence and reasonable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; if reasonable jurors could differ on negligence, the case must go to the jury.
- A motorist’s duty of ordinary care may require heightened attention at or near intersections with limited visibility and conditions suggesting potential hazards, including the likely presence of children.
- A child roughly between ages 7 and 14 is not held to an adult standard of care; the proper measure is the care ordinarily exercised by children of like age, intelligence, and experience under similar circumstances.
- A minor’s contributory negligence in that age range is ordinarily for the jury and may be decided as a matter of law only in the clearest cases.

## Conclusion

Because the evidence permitted competing inferences about Garland’s negligence and because an 11-year-old’s contributory negligence was not determinable as a matter of law on this record, the directed verdict was reversed and the case returned for jury determination at a new trial.


Williamson v. Garland, 402 S.W.2d 80 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966)