Edelman v. Connell

Citations

• 257 Pa. 317
• 101 A. 653
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 733

Syllabus

<p>. Negligence — Automobiles—Icy ■street — Speed—Children — Boy on sled — Bight angle collision — Contributory negligence — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. In an action to recover damages for injuries to an eleven-year-old boy sustained by him in consequence of being struck by an automobile, -where it appeared that he and several companions were coasting on a bobsled and collided with defendant’s automobile, which was being driven along a street intersecting the one on which plaintiff was coasting, and that the street was icy and slippery and the evidence was conflicting as to the gpeed of defendant’s car, the questions of defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence were for the jury, and a verdict and judgment for the defendant were sustained.</p> <p>2. In such ease the court properly charged the jury that “the measure of a child’s standard for contributory negligence is his capacity to understand and avoid danger..... .The law as to negligence of children is that they are required to exercise only that degree of care and caution which persons of like age, capacity and experience might be reasonably expected to naturally and ordinarily use in the same situation and under like circumstances......If you should find that the boy (plaintiff)......was not of sufficient intelligence and capacity to appreciate the danger and risks of his act......then and in that case he would not be guilty of contributory negligence......He was only required to exercise that degree of judgment, which boys of that age and of the same intelligence and observation would be required to exercise, under the same circumstances and conditions.”</p>