 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gentry v. Craycraft2/11/2004
ies of which they complain, such care, as applied to them, is that degree of care which children of the same age, education, and experience, of ordinary care and prudence, are accustomed to exercise under similar circumstances." Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Grambo (1921), 103 Ohio St. 471, 134 N.E. 648, paragraph one of the syllabus.
. The protection is even greater for younger children. This court has also held that " child under seven years of age is, as a matter of law, incapable of negligence." DeLuca v. Bowden (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 392, 71 O.O.2d 375, 329 N.E.2d 109, 71 O.O.2d 375, paragraph one of the syllabus.
. Tort law provides enough protection to children without shoehorning every activity involving children within the protections accorded to participants in sporting activities. Moreover, the majority does not limit its nail-hammering defense to children. Would or should the majority have been so quick to recognize nail hammering as a recreational activity had one of Craycraft's parents been doing the hammering? An expanded definition of what constitutes a recreational activity is expansive for everyone, not just children.
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|