Opinion ID: 1540571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Child Negligence in Delaware Common Law Standard of Care

Text: The standard of care attributable to children for the proof of negligence is well-established in Delaware: The maturity and capacity of the child, [his] ability to understand and appreciate the danger, [his] familiarity with the surroundings, together with the circumstances under which the accident occurred, must all be taken into consideration in determining whether or not [he] was guilty of contributory negligence. Pokoyski v. McDermott, Del.Supr., 167 A.2d 742, 745 (1961). The Superior Court's written decision specifically applied the Pokoyski standard of care in determining that Carroll was contributorily negligent, when Carroll crossed the street in front of Moffitt's automobile. The Superior Court's written disposition then stated that [t]he degree of [Carroll's] negligence is reduced as a result of his being only seven and one-half years of age (emphasis added). Moffitt contends that this statement was erroneous, as a matter of law, insofar as the language suggests that Carroll received the benefit of a double reduction in the trial judge's analysis of Carroll's comparative negligence. Carroll, on the other hand, argues that this language simply reiterates the Superior Court's correct explanation of the standard of care for determining the negligence of a child. According to Carroll, when the statement is read in context, Moffitt's contention attaches undue significance to the trial judge's use of the term degree.