Case Brief 8&9 - Huan Long (201005051) Case Brief...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Huan Long (201005051) Case Brief 8: Roberts v. Ring Facts: A seventy-seven-year-old man was driving on a much traveled street. His sight and hearing were defective. A seven-year-old boy who had been riding on the rear of a buggy ran from behind of the buggy across the street to the west. When he passed in front of defendant’s automobile, he was struck and injured. Rules of Law: Hannula v. Duluth & I. R. Ry. Co., 130 Minn. 3, 8, 153 N. W. 250; Powell v. Berry, 145 Ga. 696, 89 S. E. 753, L. R. A. 1917A, 306. Issues: 1. Should the boy be charged as contributory negligence, considering his age? 2. Should the defendant be charged as negligence, considering his physical infirmities? Holdings: 1. No. In determining whether the boy was negligent, we should follow the degree of care are commonly exercises by the ordinary boy of his age and maturity, as well as under similar situation. 2. Yes. Defendant’s infirmities did not tend to relieve him from the charge of negligence. Rationale: 1. If it’s not a boy, but an adult acted as did the boy and got injured, he may can be determined negligence. However, this situation happened on a boy, a minor, we
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 2

Case Brief 8&9 - Huan Long (201005051) Case Brief...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online