Rudes v. Gottschalk

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a child is not held to the standard of a reasonably prudent adult but rather to the standard of a reasonably prudent child of the same age, intelligence, and experience
• holding that a child is not held to the standard of a reasonably prudent adult but rather to the standard of a reasonably prudent child of the same age, intelligence, and experience
• recognizing that “ordinary care” as applied to a minor “may be defined as such care as an ordinarily prudent child of the age, intelligence, experience and capacity of the [the minor plaintiff] would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances”
• observing that fundamentally, the application of proscriptions contained in criminal statutes as standards for determining tort liability stems from the judicial action of civil courts and that the power of adopting or rejecting standards rests with the civil courts
• observing that fundamentally, the application of proscriptions contained in criminal statutes as standards for determining tort liability stems from the judicial action of civil courts and that the power of adopting or rejecting standards rests with the civil courts
• “As the power of adopting or rejecting standards rests with the civil courts, we may accept or reject the criminal statute or use such part thereof as may be deemed appropriate for our purposes.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).