Endicott v. Rich

Citations: 348 S.E.2d 275; 232 Va. 150; 3 Va. Law Rep. 620; 1986 Va. LEXIS 240Docket: Record 830823

Court: Supreme Court of Virginia; September 5, 1986; Virginia; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of Eddie Duane Endicott v. Lorene G. Rich and The Gillette Company, the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed a trial court judgment that found the defendant, Lorene G. Rich, not negligent and the plaintiff, thirteen-year-old Eddie Duane Endicott, contributorially negligent. The incident occurred when Rich, driving on a two-lane road, attempted to pass two boys on bicycles, one of whom was Endicott. Both boys swerved in front of her vehicle, resulting in Endicott being struck and seriously injured.

Key points of the court's ruling include:

1. The evidence presented raised a question for the jury regarding whether Rich maintained a proper lookout and acted with appropriate caution given the circumstances.
2. There were indications that Rich did not increase her vigilance and failed to anticipate potential reckless behavior from the boys.
3. The court found that there was evidence suggesting Rich did not have her vehicle under proper control while attempting to pass the boys.
4. The trial court's determination that Rich was not negligent was deemed erroneous due to sufficient evidence warranting submission to a jury.
5. Regarding contributory negligence, as Endicott was only thirteen, there is a legal presumption against his capability for negligence. The defendant bore the burden of proving that he understood the dangers involved in his actions.
6. There was no evidence to support that Endicott was capable of recognizing the dangerous nature of his decision to swerve to avoid the car.

Ultimately, the court concluded that both the trial court's rulings were incorrect, leading to the reversal of the judgment and the reinstatement of the negligence claim for further consideration.

On Route 205, two boys, Endicott and Staples, were riding bicycles side by side just before a collision with Rich's car. Endicott slowed down while sharing a story, and neither boy was aware of Rich's approaching vehicle from behind. Rich spotted the boys about half a mile ahead but could not determine their direction until the collision, despite observing their interaction. She did not honk her horn and only slowed her car down by easing off the gas pedal before attempting to pass them by crossing into the opposite lane. Endicott, noticing the car, tried to maneuver to safety but was struck by Rich's vehicle, which was predominantly in his lane at the time of impact.

Endicott argues that Rich breached several duties, including failing to maintain a proper lookout, not increasing her vigilance, and not controlling her vehicle's speed appropriately. The case presents a jury question regarding Rich's awareness of the boys' potential lack of awareness of her car. The evidence suggests that Rich should have known the boys might not see her if they were facing away, and her observation of them being engaged in conversation indicated they were likely unaware of her presence. The text also cites the legal standard for drivers when children are in the vicinity, emphasizing the need for heightened care due to the unpredictable nature of children's behavior.

In Boyd v. Brown and related cases, it is established that drivers have a heightened duty of care toward children compared to adults, recognizing that children often lack the awareness to assess danger effectively. In the case at hand, Rich drove towards two boys on bicycles, failing to recognize the potential risk they posed due to their distraction. Although she observed them, she did not take adequate precautions, such as braking or warning them. This negligence in exercising appropriate care was highlighted by the standard that drivers must anticipate children's unpredictable behaviors and the consequent need for increased vigilance. 

Endicott raised the issue of whether Rich had a statutory or common law duty to sound her horn, but this question was deemed secondary to the broader assessment of her failure to act cautiously given the circumstances. Additionally, evidence suggested that Rich did not maintain proper control of her vehicle while passing the boys, paralleling the precedent set in Ball v. Witten, where the court emphasized the necessity for drivers to exercise complete control and caution in the presence of children. The ruling underscores the duty of drivers to anticipate and mitigate potential hazards when children are nearby, especially when they may act impulsively.

In the case of Transit Company v. Brickhouse, the court emphasized the responsibility of a bus driver to exercise reasonable care, particularly in recognizing the presence of a young boy on a bicycle. In the current case, Rich, driving at 50 mph, attempted to pass two boys on bicycles who were engaged in conversation and had their backs to her, raising concerns about her control of the vehicle. The evidence suggested that Rich's negligence was sufficient to warrant a jury's consideration, contradicting the trial court's ruling that she was not negligent.

Endicott, a thirteen-year-old experienced bicyclist, faced the assertion of contributory negligence. At the time of the accident, he was aware of the dangers of riding on Route 205 and had received specific warnings to be cautious. However, Virginia law presumes minors under fourteen are incapable of negligence, placing a burden on Rich to rebut this presumption and demonstrate that Endicott understood the risks of his actions. The trial court's finding of contributory negligence was deemed erroneous, as Rich failed to satisfactorily meet the required legal standards to prove Endicott's understanding of the danger associated with his conduct. Rich's argument, which drew a parallel to a previous case involving a child jumping onto a moving train, was found inapplicable, as the key issue in this instance was not merely riding a bicycle but the specific circumstances surrounding the accident.

Rich contends that the accident would not have occurred if Endicott had not swerved in front of his car while attempting to pass. Rich tried to avoid the collision by moving to the opposite side of the road. To establish Endicott's contributory negligence, it was essential to demonstrate that he, considering his age, intelligence, and experience, understood the dangers of his decision to ride his bicycle across the road to evade the approaching vehicle. The evidence did not support the claim that Endicott recognized his choice as dangerous; rather, it suggested a juvenile decision-making process, as evidenced by his twelve-year-old companion making the same choice. The court concluded that the trial court wrongly determined Endicott was contributorially negligent as a matter of law, leading to a reversal of the trial court's judgment and a remand for retrial. A dissenting opinion argued for affirming the trial court's ruling based on precedents from Norfolk, Portsmouth Railroad v. Barker, asserting that Endicott was indeed guilty of contributory negligence.