Utah Supreme Court
Can children under five be held liable for negligence in Utah? Nielsen v. Bell Explained
Summary
A four-year-old boy threw a toy rubber dolphin that struck his babysitter in the eye, causing permanent vision loss. The babysitter sued both the boy’s parents for negligent supervision and the boy for negligence. The district court denied summary judgment on the negligence claim against the child, ruling it could not find as a matter of law that the boy was incapable of negligence.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court in Nielsen v. Bell established a clear rule regarding the liability of very young children in negligence cases, holding that children under the age of five cannot be held liable for negligence as a matter of law.
Background and Facts
A babysitter was caring for a four-year-and-nine-month-old boy who threw a toy rubber dolphin at her, striking her in the eye. The impact caused the babysitter to lose all vision in that eye due to complications with a previous cornea transplant. The babysitter sued both the boy’s parents for negligent supervision and the boy himself for negligence. The district court granted summary judgment on the negligent supervision claim but denied summary judgment on the negligence claim against the child, finding it could not determine as a matter of law that the boy was incapable of negligence.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Utah recognizes a minimum age below which a child is conclusively deemed incapable of negligence under common law. The court had to determine what that minimum age should be, examining various approaches from other jurisdictions and Utah precedent.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that Utah had adopted the Illinois rule (children under seven are incapable of negligence), finding such statements in prior cases were mere dictum. Instead, the court adopted the Restatement (Third) of Torts rule that children under five are incapable of negligence. The court reasoned that children under five have limited capacity to appreciate consequences of their actions and inadequate internal ability to control impulses. The court emphasized the importance of bright-line rules for efficiency and consistency, noting that policy considerations support protecting very young children from tort liability.
Practice Implications
This decision provides clear guidance for practitioners handling cases involving young children as defendants. Children under five receive absolute immunity from negligence liability, while children five and older may be subject to capacity determinations by the fact-finder. The ruling also affects cases where young children are plaintiffs, as they cannot be charged with contributory negligence if under five years old.
Case Details
Case Name
Nielsen v. Bell
Citation
2016 UT 14
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20131047
Date Decided
March 24, 2016
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Children under the age of five, as a matter of law, may not be held liable for negligence under Utah common law.
Standard of Review
The court reviewed de novo the district court’s legal determination regarding a four-year-old’s capacity for negligence
Practice Tip
When defending young children in negligence cases, argue for dismissal based on age if the child is under five, but prepare for fact-specific capacity analysis for children five and older.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.