Elmer was a minor, aged 18. In Merrifeld v. Maryland etc. Co., 143 Cal. 54 [ 76 P. 710], it was held that a judgment for defendant must be reversed where the jury had been instructed that an 18 year old minor must exercise the degree of care required of an ordinarily prudent man. The court expressly held that the plaintiff there — aged 18 and a half — was a minor, and that the proper instruction should have been that the plaintiff was required to exercise that degree of care that would be reasonably expected of a person of his age or experience — the exact instruction given in the present case.
Several cases dealt with this aspect of a minor's liability prior to Lehmuth v. Long Beach Unified School Dist. In Gunter v. Claggett, 65 Cal.App.2d 636 [ 151 P.2d 271], the court relied on Merrifeld v. Maryland etc. Co., 143 Cal. 54 [ 76 P. 710] (which was not an automobile case) and held that a minor driver's contributory negligence was not to be determined by adult standards. In Mosconi v. Ryan, 94 Cal.App.2d 227, 231 [ 210 P.2d 259], the court held that the minor driver was not guilty of wilful misconduct as there was no evidence that a 16-year-old boy had an appreciation of the danger.
Appellants urged that this instruction set forth the duty of care required of children, and contended that the jury should have been informed that the standard of conduct to which the minor should have conformed was that of a reasonable man. The court held that appellant's point was without merit and relied upon Merrifeld v. Maryland, etc., Co., 143 Cal. 54, 76 P. 710, which did not involve an automobile accident. No hearing by the Supreme Court was sought in either case.