Robinson v. Lindsay case brief summary
F: TC ruled in favor of Anderson, but a new trial was ordered because the jury wasnt instructed as to an adult standard of care. D objected.
Anderson, D, a minor, was driving a snowmobile belonging to another D (Lindsay, owner of snowmobile). Anderson was pulling P, Robinson, on an innertube attached by rope to the snowmobile. Ps thumb became tangled in the rope and was severed. She was able to reattach the thumb, but didn’t regain full use of it. (Minor v. non Minor, better than 13 age)
I: whether a minor operating a snowmobile is to be held to an adult standard of care.
R: a minor operating a snowmobile is to be held to an adult standard of care.
A: a minor was operating a powerful motorized vehicle, he should be held to the standard of care and conduct expected of an adult.
C: affirmed.
Co:Exception – emergency, disability
Grave danger to others and to the minor himself if the care used in the course of the activity drops below that care which the reasonable and prudent adult would use.
(1. Gravity 2.
You consider what are a reasonable child of their age capacity, would have done Standard rule of children is diff. from the standard of an adult.
Draw the line btw. two types of activity
Engaged in activity in inherently dangerous? Kick them up to the adult standard
F: TC ruled in favor of Anderson, but a new trial was ordered because the jury wasnt instructed as to an adult standard of care. D objected.
Anderson, D, a minor, was driving a snowmobile belonging to another D (Lindsay, owner of snowmobile). Anderson was pulling P, Robinson, on an innertube attached by rope to the snowmobile. Ps thumb became tangled in the rope and was severed. She was able to reattach the thumb, but didn’t regain full use of it. (Minor v. non Minor, better than 13 age)
I: whether a minor operating a snowmobile is to be held to an adult standard of care.
R: a minor operating a snowmobile is to be held to an adult standard of care.
A: a minor was operating a powerful motorized vehicle, he should be held to the standard of care and conduct expected of an adult.
C: affirmed.
Co:Exception – emergency, disability
Grave danger to others and to the minor himself if the care used in the course of the activity drops below that care which the reasonable and prudent adult would use.
(1. Gravity 2.
You consider what are a reasonable child of their age capacity, would have done Standard rule of children is diff. from the standard of an adult.
Draw the line btw. two types of activity
Engaged in activity in inherently dangerous? Kick them up to the adult standard
No comments:
Post a Comment