The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was riding his bike at 9:30 p.m. P was 14 years 4 months old at that time. D's car collided with the bike. The collision occurred after dark on a public street. P was riding his bicycle down a steep hill; as he reached the base of the hill, D turned left in front of P, and the collision resulted. P's bicycle was equipped with reflectors but had no headlight. Local codes required a headlight on a bicycle operated after dark. P suffered a broken lower leg which required three surgeries during the 6 weeks immediately following the accident. P sued D for damages. D alleged contributory negligence by petitioner as an affirmative defense. The trial court instructed the jury that violation of an ordinance is negligence per se. The court also instructed the jury that the standard of ordinary care for a child is the care that a reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, maturity, training, and experience would exercise under similar circumstances. P got the verdict, but it was reduced to $400 for the contributory negligence. P appealed. It was reversible error for the court to instruct on negligence per se because he is a minor.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.