Can children be held comparatively negligent for traffic violations in Utah? Bol v. Campbell Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important question about comparative negligence involving minors in Bol v. Campbell, clarifying when children can be held responsible for their own injuries after violating traffic laws.

Background and Facts

A twelve-year-old Sudanese refugee was struck by a car while riding his bicycle at night. The child had limited experience with vehicular traffic, having been raised in a UN refugee camp in Kenya with no paved roads or traffic lights. Four months after arriving in Utah, he attempted to cross a street without looking for oncoming traffic, believing it was safe because his sister had already looked. He was riding a black bicycle without proper lighting in violation of Utah Code § 41-6a-1114. The jury found the child 80% responsible for the accident.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on the standard of care applicable to children in comparative negligence cases, and whether sufficient evidence existed to submit the question of the child’s comparative fault to the jury without expert testimony.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied the established rule from Morby v. Rogers that a child may be found comparatively negligent for statutory violations if the child “evidenced less care than that which ordinarily could be expected of a child of the same age, intelligence, knowledge, and experience.” The court established a two-part inquiry: first, the jury must determine the child’s subjective capacity based on age, intelligence, knowledge, and experience; second, the jury must objectively determine how a reasonable child of like capacity would have acted under similar circumstances.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial guidance for practitioners handling cases involving minor defendants. The court rejected the argument that expert testimony is required to establish a child’s standard of care, holding that testimony about the child’s background, education about dangers, and understanding of safety precautions can be sufficient. Defense attorneys should focus on establishing evidence of the child’s subjective capacity through direct testimony, while plaintiff’s attorneys should consider the strength of their evidence regarding the child’s actual knowledge and experience before proceeding to trial.