Court Opinion

ID: 9623824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:44:11.557312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:35.202030
License: Public Domain

McALLISTER, J.,
dissenting.
Plaintiff was not an adult, nor was he engaged in an activity for which adult qualifications are required. He was not driving an automobile, nor was he old enough to qualify for a driver’s license. In Nielsen v. Brown, 232 Or 426, 446, 374 P2d 896, 905 (1962), we quoted from Restatement of Torts the rule applicable to a child as follows:
“ ‘If the actor is a child, the standard of conduct to which he must conform to avoid being negligent is that of a reasonable person of like age, intelligence and experience under like circumstances.’ Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, Tentative Draft No. 4, p. 18.”
The above rule should be applied in determining whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The application of the rule presents a question of fact for the jury. As said in Anno. 77 ALR2d at 932:
“Whether the question of a child’s contributory negligence is regarded as one of capacity, standard of care, or compliance with that standard, the courts are in substantial agreement that normally, if not *600always, a question of fact for the jury is presented, rather than one of law for the court. * * *”
I would affirm.
Sloan and Goodwin, JJ., concur in this dissent.