Jamie, a 9-year-old child, decides to ride her bicycle without a helmet and falls, sustaining a head injury. Under negligence law, how should Jamie's age influence the evaluation of her actions?
Jamie is held to the standard of a reasonable child of her same age and intelligence.
Jamie is considered negligent in relation to her age.
Jamie is held to a standard of care considering her age.
A reasonable adult's standard of care applies to Jamie.
In negligence law, a child's conduct is typically evaluated against the standard of a reasonably prudent child of the same age, intelligence, and experience. This special standard acknowledges that children do not possess the same judgment or risk awareness as adults. Therefore, holding a child to a reasonable adult's standard would be inappropriate. While age is a key factor, the standard is more specific, also incorporating intelligence and experience, making a standard that only considers age incomplete. Children are not entirely exempt from a standard of care; their actions are still measured, just by this modified standard.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does it mean to be held to the standard of a reasonable child?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does the standard of care for children differ from that for adults?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why are children not exempt from all standards of care?