CACI 421 Negligence per se: Rebuttal of the Presumption of Negligence (Violation of Minor Excused)
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
421 Negligence per se: Rebuttal of the Presumption of Negligence (Violation of Minor Excused)
[Name of plaintiff/defendant] claims that even if [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] violated the law, [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] is not negligent because [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] was years old at the time of the incident. If you find that [name of plaintiff/defendant] was as careful as a reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, knowledge, and experience would have been in the same situation, then [name of plaintiff/defendant] was not negligent.
Directions for Use
This instruction does not apply if the minor is engaging in an adult activity. (Evid. Code, § 669(b)(2).)
Sources and Authority
•Rebuttal of Presumption of Negligence per se: Minor. Evidence Code section 669(b)(2).
•“The per se negligence instruction is predicated on the theory that the Legislature has adopted a statutory standard of conduct that no reasonable man would violate, and that all reasonable adults would or should know such standard. But this concept does not apply to children.” (Daun v. Truax (1961) 56 Cal.2d 647, 654 [16 Cal.Rptr. 351, 365 P.2d 407].)
•An exception to this reduced standard of care may be found if the minor was engaging in an adult activity, such as driving. (Prichard v. Veterans Cab Co. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 727, 732 [47 Cal.Rptr. 904, 408 P.2d 360]; Neudeck v. Bransten (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 17, 21 [43 Cal.Rptr. 250]; see also Rest.2d Torts, § 283A, com. c.)