Duty Of Reasonable Care Flashcards
What is the standard for duty?
An objective standard that considers what a reasonable person of average intelligence would do under the same or similar circumstances. (reasonable care, ordinary care, standard of care)
Who is the reasonable person?
A fictitious person the court creates to establish what an ordinary prudent person would do in similar circumstances. (Vaughn v. Menlove - upholds the objective standard of care b/c below average intelligence is not excused, must )
What are circumstances where the standard of care line adapts to determine reasonableness?
Extraordinary Knowledge and Skill (Cerevelli - Cement Truck), Physical Disability (Poyner - blind man), Mental Disability (Creasy), Children (Robinson - snowmobile accident), Extraordinary dangerous Activities (Stewart - gas explosion), Sudden Emergency (Myhaver - car cash)
What are two ways a person can be found to have failed to exercise the duty of reasonable care?
If they have actual and constructive knowledge of the danger and fail to act as a reasonable person under the circumstances. (Parrot v. Wells - Crate explosion/nitroglycerine –> not negligent)
Does the standard of care apply to people with extraordinary knowledge and skill?
Superior qualities can be considered to determine whether a person failed to act reasonably under the circumstances. (Cerevelli > Truck Driver negligent)
Does the standard of care apply to Physical Disability?
You can factor in someone’s physical disability to determine whether they failed to act reasonably under the circumstances. Due care is such an ordinarily prudent person with the same disability would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. (Poyner - blind man –> contributory negligent)
Does the standard of care apply to Mentally Disabled individuals?
People with mental disabilities are generally held to the same standard of care as the ordinary prudent held. However, Mentally disabled patients with no capacity to control their conduct do not owe a duty to their professional caregivers to refrain from violent behavior. (Creasy v. Rusk –> not negligent)
What are the three factors that determine where a duty is owed in a caregiving context?
(1) the relationship between parties, (2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured (3) public policy concerns (Creasy - the test failed, no duty)
Does the standard of care apply to children?
Children have their own children’s standard of care for the children activity they engage in (considering age, intelligence, and experience); however, when children participate in inherently dangerous activities, the adult standard of care applies (Robinson - snowmobile accident –> negligent)
Does the standard of care apply to Extraordinarily dangerous activities?
The standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise still applies, but you can consider the dangerous activity. The care that is reasonable to require of D varies with the danger involved in his act and is proportionate to it (higher danger = higher care). (Stewart v. Motts - auto repair shop explosion - The court found the D was not negligent)
Does the standard of care apply to Sudden Emergencies?
Standard of care applies, but you consider whether there was a sudden emergency that explains the conduct to determine if the person acted reasonably. (Myhaver v. Knuttson [K. Avoiding another collision] –> K. not negligent)
What are the elements of the sudden emergency doctrine that determine whether an actor acted reasonably under the circumstances?
(1) the party seeking the instruction had not been negligent before the emergency, (2) the emergency had come about suddenly and without warning, and (3) the reaction to the emergency was spontaneous, without time for reflection. (Myhaver - car crash - Knutson was not negligent)
Does recklessness fall under simple negligence?
No
What Standard Applies to Recklessness?
Gross Negligence
What are the elements of Gross Negligence to determine whether a person acted with recklessness?
(1) Viewed objectively from actor’s standpoint, the act or omission must involve an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of potential harm to other
AND
(2) Actor must have actual, subject awareness of the risk involved but nevertheless proceeds with conscious indifference to the rights, safety or welfare of others. (Mobil v. Ellender -> Gross Negligence)
