Roberts v. Ring – Case Brief
Roberts v. Ring, 143 Minn. 151, 173 N.W. 437 (1919).
Case Summary
Facts: Ring (D) was 77 years old and had defective sight and hearing. Ring was driving down a busy street when Roberts (P), a 7 year old boy, ran into the street. Ring saw Roberts but struck the boy after failing to stop.
P sued D and P appealed the jury’s verdict in favor of D. On appeal, P claimed that D should have been able to stop since he was traveling at only five miles per hour. D claimed that P was contributorily negligent for running into the street and that he was not negligent.
Issue: Is age a factor in determining whether a party has acted with negligence?
Holding and Rule: No. The reasonable man standard is used to determine if there was negligence even if the person charged with negligence is an old man. His infirmities do not change the standard of care used. Here, D saw the boy before he hit him and he was not driving at a negligent speed and therefore was negligent in hitting him.
Regarding D’s contributory negligence claim, a different standard of care was applied because the boy was a minor. While a party may not take advantage of one’s age or infirmities in a showing of negligence, a party charged with contributory negligence is held to a standard that takes into consideration age and maturity.
Disposition: Reversed. Judgment for P.
Notes: In this case, D was judged using an objective standard (how a reasonable person driving a car would act). P was judged using a subjective standard (how a boy of his age and maturity would act.)