Reference no: EM131801338

Plaintiff, seventeen years of age, was injured when struck by an automobile driven by Defendant, sixteen years of age. The accident occurred before dawn, while Plaintiff was walking to school. The Defendant dimmed his headlights upon the approach of another vehicle and did not see Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued Defendant under a theory of negligence.

At trial, the judge should inform the jury that the Defendant must be held to the standard of:

A reasonable person under the circumstances.

A reasonable sixteen year old person.

A reasonable sixteen year old person with Defendant’s knowledge and experience.

A reasonable person under the circumstances, provided that the jury finds that an automobile is a dangerous instrumentality.

Plaintiff sued Defendant, aged 16, in negligence for (1) driving at an excessive rate of speed; (2) having excessively worn tires on his automobile, in violation of a state statute; and (3) driving a motor vehicle after his license to operate had been suspended. Defendant claimed that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent in walking on the right-hand side of the roadway. Contrary to statute, in wearing dark clothing, and in failing to carry a light under the circumstances.

Defendant’s best defense to Plaintiff’s claim of negligence is:

Lack of causation.

Defendant did not realize that the tires were excessively worn.

Defendant, due to his lack of knowledge and experience, did not realize that excessively worn tires were dangerous.

Defendant is a minor.