Court Opinion

ID: 9703914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:12:26.457967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:52.958093
License: Public Domain

Allen, J.
(concurring). I fully agree with my brother’s opinion as it applies to the facts in the instant case. I am concerned that the single sentence footnoted below1 might in a future case be cited as authority that full facts as to how the *176accident occurred should be excluded. The full facts of how the accident occurred, what the driver saw, and what the child was doing should always be presented to the jury. Cross-examination and closing arguments thereon though improper in the present case could be without error in a future case if the child’s action were relevant to the determination of the driver’s negligence. If, for example, a child under seven years of age should suddenly roller skate or ride a tricycle into the roadway, I would think such conduct would be the proper subject of cross-examination and remarks upon closing argument. In such instance a clear and precise instruction to the jury that they should consider the child’s conduct only in reference to the issue of the driver’s negligence would be required.

 "Whether the child looked both ways and came on the roadway forward or backward was only relevant and probative on the issue of the child’s negligence.