Kerr v. Forgue

Citations

• 54 Ill. 482

Syllabus

<p>1. Contributory and comparative negligence. In an action to recover damages for an injury occasioned by the negligence of the defendant, the age and discretion of the party injured are proper subjects of inquiry by the jury, in determining the relative degree of care, or want of care, as manifested by both parties.</p> <p>2. Ordinary neglect as to a person of full age and capacity, might be gross negligence as to a child.</p> <p>3. And in determining the degree of negligence of a party, the jury should take into consideration his capacity. A child can not be required to exercise as much care and caution as a person of mature years, but only such care as a person of his age and discretion would naturally use.</p> <p>4. In an action to recover for an injury to a boy about twelve years old, occasioned by the alleged negligence of the defendant, it appeared the defendant had placed upbn the sidewalk a number of barrels and counters, in a tottering condition, occupying a considerable portion of the walk, and interfering with a safe passage after night. One of the counters was eighteen or twenty feet long, and the boy, in going from his work to dinner, in passing put his hands upon this counter, apparently making a motion to jump on it, when it fell on him, fracturing his leg: Held, the negligence of the defendant in placing the obstructions on the sidewalk, and permitting them to remain there for several weeks, was much greater than the carelessness of the boy.</p> <p>5. And in an action by the father to recover for such injury, if the injury was serious and permanent, such fact would enhance the damages, which the father was entitled to recover for the loss of services, during minority.</p>