VANCOUVER — A former Kamloops resident was disappointed, his lawyer said Friday, to learn he was unsuccessful in his attempt to sue a 10-year-old girl after he jogged into her bicycle.
Rosario Perilli alleged the child was riding her bike “recklessly” when she veered into his path as he tried to pass her while out for a jog on a sunny August afternoon four years ago, causing him to fall and injure his shoulder.
But, in a judgment this week, B.C. Supreme Court Justice S. Dev Dley dismissed Perilli’s claim, found the young girl was not liable for the accident, and ordered Perrilli to pay costs.
Perilli, a man in his 40s who now lives in Ontario, was unhappy to learn of the result, said Frank Scordo, the lawyer representing him. “He thought she had cut him off and that she was responsible for his injuries.”
Scordo said while he was not criticizing the judge, the decision hinged on the question of what standard of care is reasonable to expect of a child.
“The judge basically said you can’t impose the same standard of care on a 10-year-old as you can on an adult. But funnily enough, there’s many cases where a 10-year-old has been found to be contributorily negligent,” Scordo said. “It’s not so much the age as the maturity level of the kid, and in this case, we had evidence that the girl was very mature for her age.”
In his reasons for decision, Dley described the young defendant as a “polite and mature young person, who listened to the questions attentively” during her cross-examination in court, and “was not defensive about her evidence.”
Perilli’s claim alleged the cyclist, 10 at the time of the 2014 incident, was cycling recklessly and without due care and attention. His claim also named the girl’s grandparents, “on the basis they did not properly instruct her in the safe operation of a bicycle.”
But Dley concluded that neither the girl nor her grandparents were liable.
“I find that [she]was paying proper attention to her surroundings and to others who were using the roadway,” Dley said in the judgment. “I conclude that she acted with due care and attention and did not conduct herself in a manner that imperilled others or was the cause of Mr. Perilli’s damages.”
While Perilli had alleged the child cut him off as he tried to run around her, the judge did “not accept that it was a sudden or dangerous manoeuvre,” saying that “at most [she] was simply repositioning herself within her own lane of travel.”
