Tort Law

Roberts v. Ring

143 Minn. 151, 173 N.W. 437

Facts

• Ring was approximately seventy-seven years old.
• His eyesight and hearing were substantially impaired.
• He drove an automobile slowly along a public street in Minneapolis.
• Roberts was a boy approximately seven years of age.
• The child was near the road and moved from behind another vehicle or obstruction into the street.
• Ring failed to stop or avoid him.
• The automobile struck Roberts and caused serious injury.
• Proceedings were brought on behalf of the child.
• Ring relied upon his advanced age, poor eyesight, defective hearing and slow reactions.
• He argued that his conduct should be assessed according to the care reasonably expected from a person with his individual physical limitations.
• Ring also alleged that the child had acted carelessly by entering the road.
• The trial court’s instructions did not correctly distinguish the standard applicable to the adult driver from the standard applicable to the young child.

• Whether an elderly driver’s personal physical limitations reduce the standard of reasonable care.
• Whether Ring was entitled to be judged as a reasonable person with his particular impaired eyesight and hearing.
• Whether a seven-year-old child is held to the adult reasonable-person standard.
• What standards should apply respectively to the defendant driver and the child claimant.

• An adult who voluntarily undertakes a dangerous activity such as driving is ordinarily held to the standard of a reasonably competent adult driver.
• Age, poor eyesight, defective hearing or slow reactions do not reduce that standard.
• A person who cannot meet the minimum standard because of known physical limitations may be negligent in choosing to undertake the activity.
• The risk created by those limitations is not transferred to innocent members of the public.
• A child is not generally judged by the standard of an adult.
• The child’s conduct is measured against the care ordinarily expected from a child of similar:
o age;
o intelligence;
o maturity;
o training; and
o experience.
• Children are treated differently because they lack the judgment, experience and self-control expected from adults.

• Ring’s eyesight and hearing were relevant to whether he was capable of driving safely, but they did not lower the required driving standard.
• Operating an automobile creates a serious risk to pedestrians.
• Drivers must maintain a proper lookout, control their vehicle and respond to persons entering the roadway.
• If Ring’s age and impairments prevented him from performing those functions, the reasonable response was to refrain from driving.
• The law could not permit him to drive according to a lower personal standard and place the resulting danger upon pedestrians.
• Ring’s slow speed was relevant but not conclusive.
• A driver may remain negligent at low speed if he does not observe a visible hazard or cannot react appropriately.
• Roberts’s conduct required a different assessment.
• A seven-year-old child could not be expected to judge distance, speed and traffic danger with adult accuracy.
• His movement into the roadway had to be considered in light of the limited judgment reasonably expected from children of his age.
• The jury therefore needed separate instructions.
• Ring was subject to the ordinary adult-driver standard, while Roberts was subject to the flexible child standard.

• The Minnesota Supreme Court held that Ring’s old age and physical infirmities did not reduce the standard required of a motor-vehicle driver.
• He was required to exercise the care of an ordinarily prudent and competent driver.
• Roberts’s conduct had to be measured according to the standard of a child of similar age and capacity.
• The matter required reconsideration under those correct standards.