Top Law Schools

Wasn't sure where to go with this for a quick answer so I thought why not here. Any suggestions on forums/website more geared to law school class questions are welcome.

My question is if a child is determined to be negligent using the appropriate standard of care for children, for the foreseeability test for proximate cause, do you look at what was foreseeable for a child or the normal standard of foreseeability? Thanks.

It's section 10 of the Restatement (Third):

§ 10. Children

(a) A child's conduct is negligent if it does not conform to that of a reasonably careful person of the same age, intelligence, and experience, except as provided in Subsection (b) or (c).
(b) A child less than five years of age is incapable of negligence.
(c) The special rule in Subsection (a) does not apply when the child is engaging in a dangerous activity that is characteristically undertaken by adults.

But you'll want to know what your professor says the law is.

In my Torts class we read Stevens v. Veenstra, which was about a student driver who got into a car accident.

What's Proximate Caus?










(kidding, kidding)