Donate SIGN UP
Home > Law > In a negligence case if it is no answer for an adult defendant to say that he is unsually inexperienced or slow-witted, why is it an answer for a child defedant to say that he is only fifteen?

In a negligence case if it is no answer for an adult defendant to say that he is unsually inexperienced or slow-witted, why is it an answer for a child defedant to say that he is only fifteen?

Avatar Image
lorenia2012 | 02:17 Fri 10th Aug 2012 | Law
4 Answers
In a negligence case if it is no answer for an adult defendant to say that he is unsually inexperienced or slow-witted, why is it an answer for a child defedant to say that he is only fifteen?
prev Leaseholder problem
  
next Lost house deeds
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 4 of 4rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by lorenia2012. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Avatar Image VHG
Same question asked 3 times.
06:23 Fri 10th Aug 2012
Avatar Image bednobs
you don't give many details to go on, but i would make a guess (and it's only that) that an adult is expected to assume a certain level of competence before undertaking something, and do what another reasonable person would do while a fifteen year old would only be expected to do what other 15 year olds would do
08:16 Fri 10th Aug 2012
Avatar Image EDDIE51
Under 16 is still a child and could not be legally held responcible .
16:32 Sat 11th Aug 2012
Avatar Image dotty.
user-inactive
16:35 Sat 11th Aug 2012

1 to 4 of 4rss feed

Do you know the answer?

In a negligence case if it is no answer for an adult defendant to say that he is unsually inexperienced or slow-witted, why is it an answer for a child defedant to say that he is only fifteen?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.