Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Robinson v. Lindsay | 598 P.2d 392 (1979)
Some children act like adults, and some adults act like children. What are the legal consequences when a child engages in an inherently dangerous activity normally undertaken by adults and injures another person? Does the law of negligence assess the alleged youthful tortfeasor according to a reasonable adult standard of care or a reasonable child standard of care? The Supreme Court of Washington addressed this issue in Robinson versus Lindsay.
Eleven-year old Kelly Robinson accompanied the Lindsay and Anderson families on a trip to Washington’s mountains for a day of snowmobiling. Billy Anderson, who was thirteen, operated the Lindsays’ thirty-horsepower snowmobile, which had a large innertube attached by a rope. Kelly got on the tube and Billy pulled her with the snowmobile. One of Kelly’s thumbs got caught in the rope as Billy drove the snowmobile, severing her thumb. Doctors were able to surgically reattach her thumb, but it was never again fully functional.
On behalf of Kelly, her father, William Robinson, filed a state court lawsuit alleging negligence by the Lindsays and Andersons, including by thirteen-year-old Billy. At a jury trial, the trial court instructed the jury on the definition of negligence concerning Billy’s conduct. The court told jurors that they should assess whether Billy was negligent based on a reasonable child standard of care and conduct. Applying that standard, the jury concluded that Billy wasn’t negligent. As a result, his parents and the Lindsays also weren’t liable for Kelly’s injury.
William Robinson moved for a new trial on the grounds that the court should have instructed the jury to assess whether Billy was negligent based on a reasonable adult standard because of the inherently dangerous nature of his conduct, driving a motorized snowmobile, at the time of the accident. The trial court granted the motion and ordered a new trial. The Lindsays and Andersons appealed from the trial court’s order granting a new trial. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order.
The Lindsays and Andersons appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Robinson v. Lindsay Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Теги
Robinson v. Lindsaybriefquimbeelaw casecase brief examplebrief casecase briefpress briefcase summarieslegal briefhow to brief a casecase brief templatelegal brief casehow to write a case brieflegal brief examplesample case briefcase brief formatexample of a brieflaw brieflegal brief definitionwhat is a brief in lawwhat is a case briefcourt briefbrief definition lawlegal brief templatefacts of the casecase summary example
