Bixenman v. Hall, 242 NE 2d 837. The Supreme Court of Indiana took the plaintiff's appeal, affirming as to the defendant truck driver and his employer, and reversing as to the defendant right-turning motorist. From their opinion: "Indiana long ago adopted the rule that in negligence cases, the standard of care applicable to a child engaged in the type of activity characteristically engaged in by children is that degree of care that would ordinarily be exercised by children of like age, knowledge, judgment and experience under similar circumstances. ...
[...]
"The special standard of care applicable to children was developed before there were such potentially dangerous, adult-oriented instrumentalities as automobiles so readily available to minors. ... Today, children, especially teenaged children are participating in an increasing number of adult fields of conduct. For this reason an exception to the special standard of care rule has been created for cases in which a child causes an injury while engaging in an activity for which adult qualifications are required. ... Although this exception has not yet been expressly adopted by the courts of this state, it is supported by sound logic and strong policy considerations. We are in full agreement with it and believe that it should be adopted in an appropriate case.
"In the present case, however, the adult activity exemption is not applicable since being present on a public street while riding a bicycle does not constitute what is generally considered an adult field of conduct.
"It clearly appears that the most well-reasoned rule to adopt, and indeed the general rule adopted by the majority of the United States is that where a minor is charged with negligence or contributory negligence by reason of his violation of a safety statute while engaged in an activity not requiring adult qualifications, the standard of care to be applied to such minor is that degree of care which would ordinarily be exercised by a child of the same age, experience, intelligence and educational level. ... Except where a minor is engaged in conduct which is adult in nature, which required that maturity of action and judgment be exercised for the safety of the public, 'To exact of the infant an adult standard of care for the protection of his own safety or the safety of others would be to require him to exceed his capabilities and to exercise reason he does not have.'"
Disclaimer