A Rookie Driver’s Turn Gone Wrong

Question:

Sixteen-year-old Alex is learning to drive and takes his car out with his parents’ permission. During a practice session on a public road, Alex misjudges a turn and crashes into another vehicle, injuring the driver, Sam. Sam files a negligence claim against Alex, asserting that Alex failed to exercise the care expected of a reasonable driver. Evaluate the standard of care that Alex should be held to and discuss the implications for Sam’s claim.

Baseline Response

Issue: The issue is whether Alex, a 16-year-old learning to drive, should be held to an adult standard of care in a negligence claim arising from a car accident.

Rule: The general duty of care in negligence is defined by the “reasonable and prudent person” standard, which requires individuals to act as a reasonable person would under similar circumstances. While minors are typically held to a standard based on the conduct of a minor of similar age, capacity, and experience, an exception applies when minors engage in adult activities. Courts, including in Stevens v. Veenstra, hold that minors operating vehicles or participating in inherently dangerous adult activities are subject to the same standard of care as adults.

Application: Alex was driving a car, which is classified as an adult activity due to its inherent danger and the potential for severe harm. According to Stevens v. Veenstra, engaging in such an activity subjects even minors to the adult standard of care. This standard requires Alex to act as a reasonable driver would, irrespective of his age or inexperience. By misjudging the turn and causing the collision, Alex likely breached this standard. His inexperience does not absolve him from liability, as the adult standard is imposed for public safety and consistency in assessing driving conduct.

Counterarguments: Alex’s defense might argue that he should be judged based on his age and inexperience, following the typical minor standard. However, this argument is unlikely to prevail due to the precedent set in Stevens v. Veenstra and similar cases. The rationale for holding minors to an adult standard when driving is that it ensures all drivers, regardless of age, adhere to the same level of caution and competence, which is critical for the safety of public roadways.

Conclusion: Under the applicable legal principles, Alex will be held to an adult standard of care while driving. This means that Sam is likely to succeed in his negligence claim if the evidence shows that Alex did not act as a reasonable adult driver would under similar circumstances. The court would find that Alex’s age and inexperience do not mitigate his duty while engaging in the adult activity of driving.