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

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

P and D lived on neighboring acreages. P and his three-year-old sister Molly stopped at D's place on their way home from another neighbor's house. Finding no one home, P decided to gather some twigs and build a fire on a concrete slab in the Taylors' backyard, using some matches he had taken from his uncle's car earlier that day. The wind blew that fire out. P then went to the storage shed, removed a can of gasoline, opened it, smelled it to confirm that it was gasoline, threw a lighted match into it and stood back to watch the fire come out of the can. When that fire appeared to have died out, he got a second can of gasoline and accidentally spilled some of it on his pants. P's gasoline-soaked pants somehow became ignited, and he rolled on the ground to put out the fire. P received serious burns on the lower half of his body and superficial burns on portions of the upper half. P had opened the shed by standing on his 'tippy-toes' to unlatch it. P knew D stored cans of gasoline there. P had been told not to go onto D's property when they weren't home, and that D would not have allowed him to enter the shed had they been present. P knew that gasoline would burn and might even explode when ignited with a match. P had previously been caught playing with fire on a few other occasions and had been punished and sternly warned about the dangers involved. P sued D. An expert testified that a child having P's characteristics probably would not realize the full extent of the danger involved in playing with matches and gasoline. The expert also testified that P knew he could be burned by a gasoline fire. D argued contributory negligence by P. D got the jury verdict and P appealed.

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

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