In an action for damages for injuries sustained by a boy six years and seven months of age through the alleged negligence of defendant, held, the court would not rule as a matter of law that a child of this age could not be contributorily negligent; it would leave the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence to the jury with instructions that a child can only be held to that degree of care which could reasonably be expected from a child of his own age, ability, and understanding under like circumstances. A vigorous dissent upheld the common-law rule that, as a matter of law, a child under seven is conclusively presumed to be incapable of contributory negligence. Tyler v. Weed, 285 Mich. 460, 280 N. W. 827 (1938).

Included in

Torts Commons