Daniels v. Evans case brief summary
224 A.2d 63 (N.H. 1966)
CASE FACTS
The decedent, who was 19 years of age, was killed when a motorcycle he was driving collided with the driver's automobile. At trial, as to the standard of care to be applied to the decedent's conduct, the trial court, over the driver's objection, instructed the jury that, because the decedent was under the age of 21 at the time of the accident, he was considered a minor and was not to be held to the same degree of care as an adult; instead, he was required to exercise the care of the average child of his age, experience, and stage of mental development. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of the administrator, the driver appealed.
HOLDING
The court held the driver's objection to the trial court's instruction was valid because a minor operating a motor vehicle, whether an automobile or a motorcycle, was to be judged by the same standard of care as an adult.
CONCLUSION
The court sustained the driver's exception to the trial court's judgment.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
224 A.2d 63 (N.H. 1966)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant driver appealed
from a decision of the Grafton County Trial Court (New Hampshire),
which, after a jury verdict, entered judgment in favor of plaintiff
estate administrator in the administrator's action to recover damages
for a decedent's death resulting from a motorcycle accident.CASE FACTS
The decedent, who was 19 years of age, was killed when a motorcycle he was driving collided with the driver's automobile. At trial, as to the standard of care to be applied to the decedent's conduct, the trial court, over the driver's objection, instructed the jury that, because the decedent was under the age of 21 at the time of the accident, he was considered a minor and was not to be held to the same degree of care as an adult; instead, he was required to exercise the care of the average child of his age, experience, and stage of mental development. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of the administrator, the driver appealed.
HOLDING
The court held the driver's objection to the trial court's instruction was valid because a minor operating a motor vehicle, whether an automobile or a motorcycle, was to be judged by the same standard of care as an adult.
CONCLUSION
The court sustained the driver's exception to the trial court's judgment.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment