Prudent/Reasonable Man Flashcards
*Vaughan
Dumb farmer case. Defendant placed haystack near plaintiff’s cottages after receiving many warnings about how dangerous it was; caught fire and destroyed cottages too. Court found clear negligence and said to examine negligence need to use the man of ordinary prudence standard, not the bona fide standard the defendant proposed (not objective enough). NOTE: Schwab kind of likes the idea of the bona fide standard – says how can you do better than your best?
*Roberts
Age. Minor hit by car after running in front of it, old man driving. Court said that a young boy was not held to the same standard of care in self-protection (for contributory negligence) and that the physical infirmities of old age (though not the old age itself) will weigh against the old person in negligence.
*Daniels
Age. Youth killed when his motorcycle collided with car. Court said different standard of care for minors than adults except when minors are engaged in adult activities. Minors should be judged by standards commensurate with their age, experience, and wisdom when engaged in activities appropriate to their age, experience, and wisdom BUT when engaged in adult activity that can result in grave danger to others, should be held to adult standard of ordinary care.
Adult activity?
Driving golf cart not an adult activity, but disparity in similar cases on boats, motorcycles, tractors, etc. Firearms for deer hunting gets lower standard of care because not exclusively adult activity (Purtle v. Shelton).
Dakter
Profession/licensing. Semi tractor-trailer drivers need to use reasonable degree of care expected of them as professional drivers with commercial driver’s licenses. Expected to have training and experience.
*Breunig
Mental delusion. Plaintiff hit defendant when she had delusion she would fly over car like Batman. Court said that a mental delusion could possibly be a defense in negligence if the person was incapable of avoiding it because he could not reasonably have foreseen it. It would be unjust to hold a man responsible when he is as incapable of avoiding the delusion as a heart attack because there is no forewarning, but it is for the jury to decide whether there was enough forewarning or foreseeability of such an incident occurring for it to be defense.
*Fletcher
Physical disability. City employee removed barricade near city project ditch and blind person got injured. Court said public thoroughfares are for the blind and disabled too, so RULE where physical disability: “obliged to afford that degree of protection which would bring to the notice of the person so afflicted the danger to be encountered.” (NOTE: the person with the disability is being negligent only if their conduct does not conform to that of a reasonably careful person with the same disability – maybe if blind person walking without their stick?).
*Peterson
Rich or poor doesn’t affect the standard of care bc if extremely poor that would mean no care and that doesn’t make sense, plus the rule would be uncertain.
