Case Name: SMITH v. ROCHESTER RY. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-07-06
Citations: 118 N.Y.S. 78
Docket Number: 
Parties: SMITH v. ROCHESTER RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 118
Pages: 78–82

Head Matter:
SMITH v. ROCHESTER RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
July 6, 1909.)
1. Negligence (§ 85 ) — Contributory Negligence — Care Required—Children.
A child who is sui juris, though of tender years, must exercise such degree of care as is commensurate with its age and intelligence.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. §■§ 121-129; Dec. Dig. § 85. ]
2. Street Railroads (§ 100 )—Actions—Contributory Negligence.
Where an eight year old boy, who was playing in the street, ran before an approaching street car with his head turned from it, when he could have seen the car had he looked, he was guilty of contributory negligence.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 217, 218; Dec. Dig. § 100. ]
3. Street Railroads (§ 118 )—Injuries—Actions—Contributory Negligence of Child—Instruction.
Where the conduct of an eight year old boy in running in front of a street car was negligent, if he was sui juris, the court should 'have charged, in an action for personal injuries, that the only ground on which a recovery could be had was that he was not sui juris, and his parents were not negligent in permitting him to play in the street near frequently passing cars.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Street Railroads, Dec. Dig. § 118. ]
Kruse and Spring, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Monroe County.
Action by Milton E. Smith, an infant, by Charles L. Smith, his guardian ad litem, against the Rochester Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, KRUSE, and ROBSON, JJ.
Harris, Havens, Beach & Harris and W. A. Matson, for appellant.
C. D. Kiehel, for respondent.
JTor other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic.& § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes.

Opinion:
WILLIAMS, J.
The judgment and order should be reversed on law and facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. The action is for negligently running defendant's car against the plaintiff, a boy about eight years of age, who was playing horse in the street. The grounds urged for a reversal relate to the question of contributory negligence. The court submitted to the jury the question whether the boy was sui juris or non sui juris, and whether, if he was sui juris, he exercised care to avoid injury commensurate with his years and intelligence. There was evidence upon which the jury might find the plaintiff sui juris.
The defendant excepted to the submission to the jury of the question, if the plaintiff was sui juris, whether he used the care above referred to, and requested the court to charge that there was no evidence that the plaintiff used any care. This request was refused, and the court said:
"They have heard how much knowledge he had, and what the care was."
The defendant asked the court to point out to the jury what fact, or to indicate what fact, they might consider on the question whether the plaintiff used any care. The court said:
"The court is not obliged to point out facts to a jury. They find the facts from the evidence."
The defendant asked the court to indicate from what facts the jury might find the- plaintiff used any care. The court declined to charge further than it had done. It will thus be seen that .the question is very clearly presented whether there was evidence which-would authorize the jury to find the plaintiff, if he was sui juris, free from contributory negligence. It is well settled that a plaintiff who is sui juris, though a child of tender years, in order to be free from contributory negligence, must exercise some care in approaching danger— not the same degree of care as an adult, but such care as is commensurate with its age and intelligence. Wendell v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 91 N. Y. 426; Simkoff v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 190 N. Y. 256, 83 N. E. 15, and cases therein referred to.
This was the rule of law stated to the jury by the court as I un derstand it, so that the only question here is whether any care whatever was shown. The accident occurred in daylight. The car was in full view of the plaintiff and the boys playing with him. The other boys were running after plaintiff, and he was running towards the car with his head turned away from it. He could have seen it if he had looked; but he did not look. He ran in front of the car without.exercising any care whatever to see or avoid it. This was clearly con-, tributary negligence in a boy of eight years of age, if found by the jury to be sui juris. The court should have charged the jury that the only theory upon which a recovery could be had was that the boy was non sui juris and his parents were not negligent in permitting him to play in the street where cars were passing frequently.
Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event, upon questions of law and fact. All concur, except SPRING and KRUSE, JJ., who dissent in memorandum by KRUSE, J.