Members of the jury, any action of this kind is based upon a claim that the defendant has been negligent because the law would not permit you to find a verdict for the plaintiff or to award any damages unless you should conclude first that the accident resulted because of negligence on the part of the defendant; secondly, that there was no negligence by the minor plaintiff which contributed in any way to the accident; and thirdly, that the injuries and the death resulted from the accident itself. Negligence is a failure to use the care and caution which a reasonably prudent person would exercise under the same circumstances. The reason that the plaintiff cannot recover without proving negligence on the part of the defendant is that the law does not raise any presumption just because an accident has occurred, that the defendant has been negligent. That is a matter which you would have to find from the testimony. On the other hand, the law holds that if a claim is presented on behalf of anybody there can be no recovery if that particular person was himself in any degree responsible for the accident. That is what is called contributory negligence. If any negligence on the part of the minor plaintiff contributed to the happening of the accident, there could be no recovery. In this case, inasmuch as the minor plaintiff died as a result of the injuries, the law raises the presumption that he was careful and that he was not contributorily negligent. It would be essential, therefore, for the defendant to proof contributory negligence on the part of the boy. That would be one of the questions you would have to take into consideration. It is your duty to determine the facts. It is your duty to reconcile the testimony as far as you can, bearing in mind the fact that no two persons recount a thing exactly the same. Bear in mind the further fact that there is apt to be the a little confusion on the part of witnesses inexperienced in court when they get on the witness stand and consequently, minor discrepancies may appear. You take all those factors into consideration and you bring to bear in passing upon the facts, your judgment as to who has been telling you the truth. In other words, you pass upon the credibility of the witnesses. When you do that, you may take into consideration their interest in the outcome of the case, if any. I do not mean that just because a person may be interested in the outcome of a case that he or she is not telling the truth because, obviously, in many, many instances they do tell the truth. That is merely a factor for you to consider. You bring to bear all those qualities that you have acquired as adult human beings which enable you to determine whether a person is being truthful or untruthful. Although I shall refer to the facts, you take your recollection at all times in preference to anything I may say. It may be that I will make some error inadvertently in discussing the facts or I may overlook something that you think is important, so trust your own recollection.