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?

[lorenia2012]

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?

[VHG]

Same question asked 3 times.

[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

[EDDIE51]

Under 16 is still a child and could not be legally held responcible .

[dotty.]

user-inactive