|
Brief Summary: This new Tennessee Court of Appeals decision addresses the "Rule of Sevens" or "Rule of Capacity" to determine when a minor can be found negligent or comparatively at fault. Under Tennessee Law a minor child under the age of seven is not capable of negligence. There is a rebuttable presumption that a minor between the ages of seven and fourteen does not have the capacity for negligence. There is a rebuttable presumption that a minor between the ages of fourteen and eighteen does have the capacity for negligence.
Analysis: The recent Tennessee Court of Appeals decision of Ulysses Durham, Jr. v. John Noble, No. M2011-01579-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 3041296 (Tenn.Ct.App. July 25, 2012) discussed when a minor child can be found responsible for negligence under Tennessee law. In this case, an eleven year old boy was struck by a school bus while riding his bicycle. There was a dispute as to who was at fault, the bus driver or the minor child who was riding his bike. The trial court assessed 58% of the fault for the accident to the minor child and 42% to the school bus driver. The plaintiffs appealed and argued that 58% of the fault could not be assessed to an eleven year minor child under Tennessee law.
Tennessee courts have developed the "Rule of Sevens" or "Rule of Capacity" to determine when a minor can be found responsible for negligence. This rule has three presumptions pertaining to the responsibility of a minor. The first presumption is that "a child under the age of seven has no capacity for negligence." Durham at p. 3. Second, "there is a rebuttable presumption that a child between the ages of seven and fourteen does not have the capacity for negligence." Durham at p. 3. Third, "there is a rebuttable presumption of capacity for negligence for a child between the ages of fourteen and twenty-one." Durham at p. 3. It is important to note that the Tennessee Legal Responsibility Act of 1971 codified in T.C.A. § 1-3-113 lowered the age of majority from 21 to 18 therefore the high range for the third category for the "Rule of Sevens" was reduced from 21 to 18. See John Doe v. Mama Taori's Premium Pizza, LLC, No. M1998-00992-COA-R9-CV, 2001 WL 327906 at *5 (Tenn.Ct.App. April 15, 2011). The determination as to whether a minor has capacity for negligence is an issue for the trier of fact.
The Court then analyzed the facts present in the Durham case to determine if the eleven year old boy was capable of negligence in this case. The pertinent facts included that the minor was knowledge about the operation of a bicycle. Further, he was familiar with the rules of the road based on instructions from his parents. He was also aware he should look both ways before crossing a street and was familiar with the neighborhood where the accident occurred. Additionally, the evidence presented showed he had been cautioned immediately before the accident to make sure he stopped at stop signs. His parents testified he was a "deep thinker" and a good student who made A's and B's. As a result, the Tennessee Court of Appeals found these facts were sufficient to rebut the presumption that an eleven year old minor was not capable of negligence and therefore apportion fault to the minor.
|