M Civ JI 10.07 Conduct Required for Safety of Child

The law recognizes that children act upon childish instincts and impulses. If you find the defendant knew or should have known that a child or children were or were likely to be in the vicinity, then the defendant is required to exercise greater vigilance and this is a circumstance to be considered by you in determining whether reasonable care was used by the defendant.

Note on Use

This instruction is to be used in appropriate cases where the plaintiff seeks damages for injury to a minor. If the conduct of a person, e.g., agent, driver, etc., other than defendant was involved in the occurrence, substitute name or other descriptive term in the instruction. This instruction should be given immediately after M Civ JI 10.03.

See Bolser v Davis, 62 Mich App 731; 233 NW2d 845 (1975), where defendant’s knowledge that there were homes along the road on which she was driving was a fact from which a jury could infer that she knew or should have known that a child or children were or were likely to be in the vicinity, and therefore the evidence was sufficient to make this instruction appropriate.

Comment

The law recognizes that children, wherever they go, must be expected to act upon childish instincts and impulses. Powers v Harlow, 53 Mich 507, 515; 19 NW 257, 260 (1884); Edgerton v Lynch, 255 Mich 456, 460; 238 NW 322, 323–324 (1931). Michigan law requires greater vigilance toward children than toward adults, although the degree of care does not change. See Comment, M Civ JI 10.02.