Negligence REASONABLE PERSON UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES Flashcards
What is the reasonable person standard applied to the use of property?
A person has a legal duty to use his or her property with the same level of ordinary care that would be exercised by a reasonable person. Every person, when using his property, has a duty to not injure the property of others. This duty can be most accurately measured by an objective standard requiring ordinary care. The actor is required to do what this ideal individual would do in his place. (Vaughan v. Menlove)
How is the Knowledge of a reasonable person analyzed?
Negligence analysis is premised upon a consideration of the actor’s actual knowledge prior to the accident as well as the constructive knowledge that a reasonable person would have had in the same circumstances (nitroglycerine case. We did not know about its flammability).
Do extra skills come into play when analyzing the standard of care?
Yes, In determining whether a defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care that would be exercised by a similarly situated reasonable person, a jury may consider evidence of exceptional skills or qualities possessed by the defendant (those skills could be extensive experience/ proficiency in truck driving Cervelli case)
Do we hold people with physical disability to a different standard of care?
No, if someone with a physical disability does not use the devices usually employed, to compensate for his disability he may be contributorily negligent in his actions if he fails to exercise due care for his own safety with respect to known or reasonably foreseeable dangers. Due care is such care that an ordinarily prudent person with the same disability as the party would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. (Blindman case Poyner v. Loftus).
Do we hold people with mental disability to a different standard of care?
No, adults with mental disabilities are generally held to the same standard of care as that of a reasonable person under the circumstances, without regard to their capacity to control or understand the consequences of their actions. There are several policy reasons for holding a person with mental disabilities to a reasonable-person standard of care.
what are the policy reasons for holding a person with mental disabilities to a reasonable-person standard of care?
-First, the rule allocates the loss between two innocent parties to the party who caused the harm.
-Second, the rule provides an incentive for the people who are responsible for caring for a mentally disabled person to take necessary steps to prevent harm to others, including restraining the person if he or she presents a danger.
-Third, the rule removes any incentive for a tortfeasor to feign a mental disability to avoid liability.
-Fourth, the rule remedies the difficulty that factfinders face in attempting to evaluate the impact of a potential tortfeasor’s mental disability. Moreover, because state and national policy seek to promote equality between disabled persons and those without disabilities, the rule holds the mentally disabled responsible if they are to engage themselves in society (Creasy Case).
How is the standard care for children analyzed?
The standard of care against which a child is to be judged is generally that of a “reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, maturity, training, and experience,” this is not the standard to be applied if the child is engaged in an inherently dangerous activity. In these types of cases, an adult standard of care should be applied because it would be unjust to allow a child to defend his negligence on the basis of age when he was willfully engaged in an activity normally not undertaken by individuals his age (Robinson v. Lindsay).
Do we alter the standard of a reasonable person when engaging in dangerous activities (ie filling up a bike with gas)?
No, the circumstance of extraordinary danger does not necessitate a change in the standard. Reasonable care standard is flexible enough to demand greater care when dealing with higher degrees of danger (Stewart v. Motts)
What is the doctrine of sudden emergency?
When a party, by the negligence of another, is placed in a position of danger and is compelled to act suddenly, … the law does not demand that accuracy of judgment which would be called for under other circumstances … even if he makes a mistake, he will not be deemed to have been guilty of negligence or contributory negligence.
When is the doctrine of sudden emergency applied?
sudden-emergency jury instruction should only be given in rare cases in which the evidence showed that: (1) the party seeking the instruction had not been negligent prior to the emergency, (2) the emergency in question came about suddenly and without warning, and (3) the defendant’s reaction to the emergency was spontaneous, without time for reflection.
