15 / 270
GAZETTE
JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1980
are adult activities imposing an adult standard of care on
children who perform them.
Conclusion
The law relating to the contributory negligence and
negligence of children is uncertain in a number of
important respects. With increasing affluence among older
teenagers and with the consequent enhanced likelihood of
litigation involving them in the future, it may not be long
before the Supreme Court makes a definitive and compre-
hensive statement on the subject.
•This article is written in a personal capacity.
FOOTNOTES
1. See generally
Salmond on the Law of Torts,
521-522(17th ed.,
by R. F. V. Heuston, 1977);
Clerk and Llndsell on Torts,
611-613
(14th ed., 1975); H. Street,
The Law of Tort,
124, 159 (6th ed.,
1976); J. Fleming,
The Law of Torts,
270-271 (5th ed., 1977); G.
Williams,
Joint Torts and Contributory Negligence,
355-356 (1951);
W. Prosser,
Handbook of the Law of Torts,
154-156 (4th ed., 1971);
Anon.,
Children and Contributory Negligence,
100 I.L.T. & Sol. J.
425 (1966); Anon.,
Motorists, Children and Contributory Negligence,
72 I.L.T. & Sol. J. 119 (1938); Anon.,
Children and Negligence,
75
I.L.T. & Sol. J. 89 (1941); Shulman,
The Standard of Care Required
of Children,
37 Yale LJ. 618 (1927).
2. Whilst parents are not as such liable for the torts of their
children, they may be liable where they directed, authorised or ratified
their child's act (cf.
Waters
v
O'Keqffe,
[19371 Ir. Jur. Rep. 1 (High
Court, Hanna, J., 1936); Moon v
Towers,
8 C.B.(N.S.) 611, 141 E.R.
1306 (1860)), where there is a relationship of master and servant
between parent and child (cf.
Moynihan
v.
Moynihan,
[ 1975] I.R. 192
(Sup. Court), analysed by Davies,
Torts,
ch. 15 of H. Wade, ed.,
Annual Survey of Commonwealth Law 1976,
at 406 (1978)), where
they allow the child access to dangerous things (cf.
Sullivan v Creed,
[1904] 2 I.R. 317 (Ct. App., 1903) or where they are otherwise negli-
gent in affording the child an opportunity to injure another. See
generally, Waller,
Visiting the Sins of the Children: The Liability of
Parents for Injuries Caused by Their Children,
4 Melbourne U.L.
Rev. 17 (1963).
3. [1955-1956] Ir. Jur. Rep. 71, at 72 (Sup. Ct., 1953).
4. [1908] I.R. 242, at 268 (K.B. Div., 1906).
5. 80 I.L.T.R. 121 (Circuit Ct., Glceson, J., 1946).
6. 68 D.L.R. (2nd) 627, at 630 (Sask. Q.B., Disbery, J., 1968).
Cf.
McEllistrum v Etches,
[1956] S.C.R. 787, at 793
{per
Kerwin,
CJ.C.).
7. l F. & F. 359, 174 E.R. 763 (1858). This statement has been
criticised as being "scarcely satisfactory, because it is difficult to say
what is or is not a tender age": H. Smith,
A Treatise on the Law of
Negligence,
243 (2nd ed., 1884). It should be noted that Channel!, B.,
proposed that the parties settle the action, which might suggest that he
did not regard the issue of the child's contributory negligence as a closed
one.
8. See the decisions cited by Heinselman,
Annotation: Contributory
Negligence of Children,
107 A.L.R. 4, at 98-101 (1937),.and by
Shipley,
Annotation: Modern Trends as to Contributory Negligence of
Children, 11
A.L.R. 2nd 917 at 923. See, however,
United Rys.
A
Electric Co. of Baltimore v Corneal,
110 Md. 211, 72 A. 771 (Ct.
Apps., 1909).
9. Cf.
Brown v Foley,
[ 1932] LJ., I.F.S. 205 (High Ct., O'Byrne, J.);
Cullen v Heagney,
[1931] LJ. I.F.S. 149;
Carmarthenshire Co. v
Lewis,
[1955] A.C. 549, at 563 (H.L. (Eng.),
per
Lord Reid,
obltet).
10. Cf.
Curran v Padepud,
72 I.L.T.R. 246 (Circuit Ct., Shannon,
J., 1938), rev'd., 73 I.L.T.R. 89 (High Ct., O'Byrne, J., 1939);
Finnegan v The Irish Shell Co., 1
1 I.L.T.R. 200 (Circuit Ct., Sheehy,
J., 1937);
Plantza v Glasgow Corporation,
47 Sc.L.R. 688 (1910);
Ryan v Madden,
[1944] I.R. 154 (High Ct., O'Byme, J., 1943).
11. Cf.
Donovan vLandy'sLtd.,
[
1963] I.R. 441 (Sup. Ct., 1962);
Brien v. McGarry,
62 I.L.T.R. 166 (Circuit Ct., Davitt, J., 1927);
Curran
v
Lapedus, supra,
fn. 10.
12. Cf.
O'Rourke v Cavan UJ).C.,
77 I.L.T.R. 16 (Circuit Ct.,
Sheehy, J., 1942). See also
Brown v Foley, supra
fn. 9 (
per
O'Byrne, J.,
during argument): "I thought the dividing line was between seven and
nine."
13. 62 I.L.T.R. 65 (Sup. Ct., 1928, afPg High Ct., Davitt, P.).
14. [1949] Ir. Jur. Rep. 6, at 7, High Ct., Black, J. See also
O'Gorman v Crotty,
[1946] Ir. Jur. Rep. 34 (High Ct., O'Byrne, J.,
1945), 1Of year-old boy held capable of contributory negligence;
McLoughlin v Antrim Electricity Supply Co.,
[1941] N.I. 23 (C.A.,
1940).
15.
Supra,
fn. 3.
16.
Id.
17. [1960] Ir. Jur. Rep. 69, at 74 (Sup. Ct.).
18.
Id.
19. 102 I.L.T.R. 67, at 67 (Sup. Ct., 1965).
20.
Tiernan v O'Callaghan,
78 I.L.T.R. 36 (Circuit Ct., Fawaitt, J.,
1944);
Byrne v Corporation of Dun Laoghaire,
[1940] Ir. Jur. Rep. 40
(High Ct., Hanna, J.);
McLoughlin
v
Antrim Electricity Supply Co.,
supra,
fn. 14.
21. O'Gorman v Crotty. supra,
fn. 14;
Finnegan v The Irish Shell
Co., supra,
fn. 10;
Courtney v Masterson, supra,
fn. 14
22. [1975] I.R. 1 (Sup. Ct., 1974), analysed by McMahon,
Note:
Herrington and Trespassers In Ireland,
91 L.Q. Rev 323 (1975)
23.
Supra,
fn. 3.
24.
Supra,
fn. 22, at 17-18 (italics mine).
25.
Id.,
at 18.
26.
Id.,
at 27.
27.
Id.,
at 36.
28.
Id.,
at 21.
29.
Id.,
at 8.
30.
Supra,
fn. 22.
31 Cf.
McEllistrum v Etches, supra,
fn. 6;
Pasktviski v Canadian
Pacific, Ltd.,
[1976] 1 S.C.R. 687;
Wade v Canadian NationalRy
3
C.C.L.T. 173 (Sup. Ct. Can., 1977).
*'
32. See Shulman,
supra,
fn. 1; Ireland
Comment,
37 Montana L
Rev. 257, at 261-262 (1976); Katz,
Note: The Standard of
Cw
Required of Infants,
25 Temp. L.Q. 478 (1952); Irvin,
Comment.
38
Ore. L. Rev. 268 (1959).
33. Cf. Salmond,
supra,
fn. 1, 521-522; H. Street,
supra,
fn. 1,
122; G. Williams,
supra,
fn. 1, 355-356;
Lynch v Nurdin,
1 Q.B. 29
113 E.R. 1041 (1841);
Hughes v Macfie,
2 H . & C . 744, 159 E.R
308 (1863);
Mangan v Atterton,
L.R. 1 Ex. 239 (1866);
Lay v
Midland Ry. Co.,
34 L.T. 30(Exch. Div., 1875);
Clark v Chambers,
3 Q.B.D. 327 (1878);
Gough v Thorne,
[1966] 1 W.L.R. 1387
(C.A.);
Jones v Lawrence,
[1969] 3 All E.R. 267 (Cumming-Bruce J
1968);
Culkin
v.
McFie
A
Sons, Ltd., [1949]
3 All E.R. 613 (Croom-
Johnson, J.).
34. Cf.
McHale v Watson,
115 C.L.R. 199 (High Ct., Auatr.,
1966);
Cotton v Commissioner for Road Transport
A
Trainways
43*
S.R. (N.S.W.) 66 (Sup. Ct., 1942);
Joseph v Swallow
A
Ariell Pty.
Ltd.,
49 C.L.R. 578 (High Ct., 1933); D. Harland,
The Law of
Minors in Relation to Contracts and Property,
ch. 13 (1974); Disney,
Casenote: Standard of Care in Child Negligence,
3 Adelaide L Rev'
118 (1968).
35. E.g.
McHale v Watson, supra,
fn. 34, at 224-226
(per
Menzies, J., dissenting); Halsbury's
Laws of England,
vol. 28, 10 (3rd
ed., 1957) (referring to decisions that do not appear to support the
proposition for which they are cited).
36. Cf. Salmond,
supra,
fn. 1, 222; J. Fleming,
supra,
fn. 1, 112-
113; see, however,
Kingston v Kingston, supra,
fn. 19, at 67 (per
Walsh, J.).
38. Cf.
Ryan v Hickson, 1 O.K.
(2nd) 352, 55 D.L.R. (3rd) 196
(High Ct., Goodman, J., .1974), strongly influenced by the argument
of Professor Allen Linden in
Canadian Negligence Law,
33-34 (1972).
39. Cf. J. Fleming,
supra,
fn. 1, 113, citing
Tucker v Tucker,
[1956] S.A.S.R. 297.
40. Cf.
Taurunga Electric Power Board v Karora ,
[1939]
N.Z.L.R. 1040 (C.A.), analysed by Anon.,
Comment,
18 Can. Bar
Rev. 67 (1940).
41. 258 Minn. 452, 107 N.W. 2nd 859 (Minn. Sup. Ct., 1961),
analysed by Anon.,
Note,
[1962] Duke LJ. 138.
42.
Goss v Allen,
134 N J . Sup. 99, 338 A. 2nd 820 (Sup. Ct.,
App. Div., 1975),
reversed on appeal,
70 N J . 442, 360 A. 2nd 388
(Sup. Ct., 1975).
43.
Neumann vShlansky,
58 Misc. 2nd 128, 294 N.Y.S. 2nd 628
(Westchester Cty. Ct., 1968),
qfTd.,
34 A.D. 2nd 1016, 312 N.Y.S.
2nd 947 (Sup. Ct., App. Div., Second Dept., 1970),
c f f d . ,
318
N.Y.S. 2nd 925 (1971); see Notes by Rosenberg in 20 Syracuse L.
Rev. 823 (1969), Stobbs in 71 W. Virginia L. Rev. 434 (1969) and
MJ.T. in 33 Albany L. Rev. 434 (1969).
9