Opinion ID: 1273783
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The failure to instruct on the presence of children

Text: In my opinion the trial court erred in refusing to give the following instruction (4 Hetland & Adamson, Minnesota Practice, Jury Instruction Guides [2 ed.] JIG II 103 G-S): Where a person (knows) (has reason to know) that children are likely to be in the vicinity, the greater hazard created by their presence (or probable presence) is a circumstance to be considered in determining whether reasonable care was used.    In this case not only were children likely to be in the vicinity but they, in fact, were. Several of the children had already crossed the streetsomething that defendant should have noted. It was a foreseeable act that a little 5-year-old child might be tempted to follow those children who had already crossed the street. Moreover, the evidence shows that plaintiff here, only 5 years and 8 months of age, was slower mentally, both at home and in school, than a normal child of comparable age.