Roberts v. Ring (1919)

a.       Facts- Π was a 7 year old boy, and Δ was a 77 year old man and hard of hearing/seeing. As Π was running across a street, Δ, going about 4-5 mph, struck Π and ran him over. Trial Ct found for Δ and Π appealed on the grounds that the jury received improper instructions. The jury was instructed to not hold the Π’s own negligence against him (correct), and to take into account Δ’s age and deficiencies (incorrect)

b.      Procedural History- Trial Ct found for Δ, Π appealed, Ct of appeals reversed (and remanded?)

c.       Issue-

                                                              i.      Whether the jury may take into account the boy’s (Π’s) age when considering contributory negligence

                                                            ii.      Whether an older adult is held to the same standard of care as the average adult

d.      Holding-

                                                              i.      Yes, the jury may take into account the boy’s age when considering contributory negligence

                                                            ii.      Yes, an older adult is held to the same standard of care as an average adult

e.       Rule- An older adult must exercise the same standard of care as a younger adult, and a minor’s age may be taken into account in considering contributory negligence

f.       Rationale-

                                                              i.      Δ’s shortcomings (age and physical deficiencies) presented a reason why Δ should refrain from driving.

                                                            ii.      “When one, by his acts or omissions causes injury to others, his negligence is to be judged by the standard of care usually exercised by the ordinarily prudent normal man”