Court Opinion

ID: 9851892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:21:02.304396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:18.726303
License: Public Domain

CRAIL, P. J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment but not in a part of the opinion. The opinion says, “It is very difficult to perceive why the jury should be allowed to determine questions of fact concerning the alleged contributory-negligence of a child of the age of fifteen years and be denied this privilege in the case of a child of the age of thirteen *414years.” I do not like this sentence. It looks as if we thought that under the case cited such might be the holding of the court. But, no, the real import of the case, although poorly disclosed, is, and all the law is to the same effect, that the younger the child the less likely it is to be capable of committing contributory negligence. (45 C. J. 998.)
It was not because the child was young that she was held guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, but in spite of the fact that she was young that the court permitted a ruling that she was capable of committing negligence and was indeed guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.