1939•Michigan Law ReviewRequires access

Negligence: Contributory Negligence of Children

Russel T. Walker

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

In an action for damages for injuries sustained by a boy six years and seven months of age through the alleged negligence of defendant, held, the court would not rule as a matter of law that a child of this age could not be contributorily negligent; it would leave the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence to the jury with instructions that a child can only be held to that degree of care which could reasonably be expected from a child of his own age, ability, and understanding under like circumstances. A vigorous dissent upheld the common-law rule that, as a matter of law, a child under seven is conclusively presumed to be incapable of contributory negligence. Tyler v. Weed, 285 Mich. 460, 280 N. W. 827 (1938).

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In an action for damages for injuries sustained by a boy six years and seven months of age through the alleged negligence of defendant, held, the court would not rule as a matter of law that a child of this age could not be contributorily negligent; it would leave the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence to the jury with instructions that a child can only be held to that degree of care which could reasonably be expected from a child of his own age, ability, and understanding under like circumstances. A vigorous dissent upheld the common-law rule that, as a matter of law, a child under seven is conclusively presumed to be incapable of contributory negligence. Tyler v. Weed, 285 Mich. 460, 280 N. W. 827 (1938).

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In an action for damages for injuries sustained by a boy six years and seven months of age through the alleged negligence of defendant, held, the court would not rule as a matter of law that a child of this age could not be contributorily negligent; it would leave the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence to the jury with instructions that a child can only be held to that degree of care which could reasonably be expected from a child of his own age, ability, and understanding under like circumstances. A vigorous dissent upheld the common-law rule that, as a matter of law, a child under seven is conclusively presumed to be incapable of contributory negligence. Tyler v. Weed, 285 Mich. 460, 280 N. W. 827 (1938).

Key concepts: Contributory negligence, Res ipsa loquitur, Medical negligence, Law, Medicine, Tort, Political science, Liability

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Negligence: Contributory Negligence of Children — Research Paper | ScholarLens