Dunn v. Teti (1979)

a.       Facts- Π and Δ were about 6 years old. Δ negligently swung a stick and caused injuries to Π. Π sued Δ for negligence

b.      Procedural History- Trial Ct gave summary judgment to Δ, Π appealed, Ct of appeals affirmed

c.       Issue- Whether there is a minimum age for negligence, such that any age lower would be incapable of negligence

d.      Holding- Yes, there is a minimum age for negligence such that any age lower would not be capable of being negligent

                                                              i.      Dissent: We must take into account a child’s age when considering negligence. This rule takes into account differing capacities of children of the same age to appreciate and cope with certain dangers

1.      Ex. One 8 year old may be very mature, while another 8 year old is not

e.       Rule-

                                                              i.      Minors under 7 years old are presumed to be incapable of negligence

                                                            ii.      Minors 7-14 years old are presumed incapable of negligence, but this defense weakness as the child approaches age 14

                                                          iii.      Minors over 14 are presumptively capable of negligence, with the burden placed on the minor to prove incapacity

f.       Rationale-