Determining Negligence of Children in Texas Law: An Outside Corporate Counsel Attorney's Perspective

Determining the negligence of children in Texas law presents a uniquely sensitive and complex challenge, demanding a nuanced approach from legal counsel. The state's legal framework recognizes that a child's capacity to understand and appreciate risk evolves with age and experience, diverging significantly from the adult standard of the "reasonable person." Consequently, a one-size-fits-all standard is inappropriate. Instead, Texas courts employ a subjective standard, evaluating the child's actions based on the behavior expected of a similarly aged minor with like experience and intelligence under comparable circumstances. This age-adjusted standard, rooted in common law principles, acknowledges the inherent developmental differences that must be considered when a minor is involved in a civil liability case.

For very young children, Texas law historically established a "conclusive presumption" of incapacity, essentially deeming those under a certain age—often cited in past cases as around five or six years old—incapable of negligence as a matter of law. This presumption serves as a critical protective measure, shielding infants and toddlers from the legal responsibility for actions they lack the cognitive development to control or understand. While the precise age cutoff can be argued and applied differently based on specific facts and evolving legal interpretation, the underlying principle remains: the youngest children are generally shielded from personal negligence claims, shifting the focus instead to potential parental responsibility or other proximate causes of an incident.

As children mature into adolescence, the standard of care expected of them gradually approaches that of an adult. The law increasingly assumes an older minor possesses sufficient mental capacity and life experience to exercise a reasonable degree of caution. In cases involving teenagers, particularly those engaged in inherently dangerous activities typically reserved for adults, such as driving a car or operating heavy machinery, Texas courts often apply an adult standard of care. This "adult activity" exception is crucial, reflecting the judgment that when a minor chooses to participate in an activity demanding a high level of mature responsibility and skill, they must be held to the same standard as any adult performing that same activity.

For the most part, in Texas, a child who is beneath the age of five is incapable of negligence as a matter of law.  Yarborough v. Berner, 467 S.W.2d 188, 190 (Tex. 1971).  Where the negligence of a child above the age of five is at issue, the child=s negligence is to be judged by a standard of conduct applicable to a child of the same age and not by that standard that is applicable to an adult.  Yarborough, supra; Rudes v. Geottschalk, 324 S.W.2d 201, 204 (1959); Dallas Railway and Terminal Company v. Rogers, 218 S.W.2d 456 (1949); Texas and Pacific and Railway Co. v. Krump, 115 S.W. 26 (1909); Texas and Pacific Railway Co. v. Phillips, 42 S.W. 852 (1897); and Missouri Kansas and Texas Railway Co. v. Rogers, 36 S.W. 243 (1896).  The pattern jury charge  section 2.3, Child’s Degree of Care, defines the standard as follows:

Negligence, when used with respect to the conduct of a child, means failing to do that which an ordinary prudent child of the same age, experience, intelligence, and capacity would have done under the same or similar circumstances or doing that which such a child would not have done under the same or similar circumstances.

Ordinary care, when used with respect to the conduct of a child, means the degree of care that an ordinary prudent child of the same age, experience, intelligence, and capacity would have used under the same or similar circumstances.

The lower end of the age bracket is clearly five in the State of Texas, but there seems to be less clarity as to what the high end of the bracket will be.  In Austin v. Hoffman, 379 S.W.2d 103 (Tex. App. – Austin 1964, n.w.h.), the Court stated “it would appear that if a child is under the common law bracket of fourteen, the Texas Courts apply the standard of care applicable to children, on the other hand, if a child is above the age of fourteen, the adult standard of care is applied, unless it be shown that the child is wanting discretion or laboring under the handicap of some mental disability.”  Austin v. Huffman, 379 S.W.2d 107.

The practical challenge for general counsel lies in navigating the inherent variability and subjectivity of these standards. Building a negligence case involving a minor requires extensive evidence gathering, including school records, developmental assessments, and detailed testimony from parents, teachers, and potentially expert witnesses to establish the child's actual capacity and the specific circumstances of the incident. Counsel must meticulously argue the child's subjective understanding of the risk involved, painting a clear picture for the judge or jury. The outcome often hinges less on bright-line rules and more on persuasive advocacy regarding the specific minor's cognitive ability relative to their actions on that particular day.

The determination of a child's negligence in Texas law is a fact-intensive inquiry designed to balance accountability with an understanding of childhood development. It forces a careful legal analysis of age, maturity, and context, requiring counsel to present a compelling narrative that aligns with the evolving legal standards. The goal is to ensure a just outcome that recognizes the unique nature of minors as legal subjects, applying a standard that is fair and appropriate to their stage of life and the activities in which they were engaged.

Need to learn more? Get in touch.