Massie v. Copeland

I cannot agree with the majority holding that the normal fourteen-year-old Copeland boy was guilty of negligence as a matter of law for engaging in swimming in the pit in which *330he was drowned. His,, father and mother alleged he did not understand its dangers. The effect of the majority holding is to deny them, merely on the ground he was fourteen years old and normal, the privilege of developing detailed evidence on the issue, which, under proper procedure, cannot be pleaded. The allegation that he was robust and healthy, adds nothing of value to the fact that he was normal, so far as his…