Reasonable Care and Culpability

Question 1

Elements of Reasonable Care Analysis

Answer 1

• NOT just utility balancing for negligence -> also need to look at culpability

Question 2

Culpability - General Idea

Answer 2

• no doubt about safety norms in certain situations, but issue is whether fairness requires the actor to meet the safety rule

Question 3

Holmes

Answer 3

• general basis of all tort is blameworthiness
• law takes no account of differences between people’s character
• loss from accident must lie where it falls - shift of loss from P to D is only available through fault (strict liability offense to fairness + utility)

Question 4

Degrees of Moral Culpability According to Sarge

Answer 4

• Error (lowest)
• Inadvertence (middle)
• Disregard (highest)

Note: degrees of moral culpability don’t really matter for the sake of law but does matter in the issuance of punitive damages and contributory negligence in the comparative analysis

Question 5

Error

Answer 5

• lowest level of moral culpability
• no moral criticism
• actor does not devalue others, just didn’t know was doing wrong before or during

Question 6

Inadvertence

Answer 6

• middle moral culpability
• some moral criticism
• not paying much attention -> subjectively benign but you know you could’ve done better

Question 7

Disregard

Answer 7

• highest level of moral culpability
• recklessness, gross negligence
• aware of risk, but indifferent to others’ well-being
• strong moral criticism

Question 8

Vaughan v. Menlove - Facts

Answer 8

• pl had two cottages + def had a pile of hay near boundary w/ pl’s land -> def had discussions on probability of fire + was warned of the danger multiple times but said “he would chance it”
• def did build aperture or chimney through hay-> intended as precaution, but might’ve contributed to the fire
• hay caught fire -> spread to pl’s cottages + they burned down

Question 9

Vaughan v. Menlove - Standard

Answer 9

• articulates standard of reasonable man -> rather than asking whether def acted bona fide to the best pf his judgment, approved jury instruction that said jury should consider “such reasonable caution as a prudent man would’ve exercised”
• objective standard rather than subjective

Question 10

La Marra v. Adam

Answer 10

• emergency - police care runs red light at 1AM going 45 mph while driving a prematurely born baby to the hospital
• think case is supposed to illustrate eval of negligence in emergency scenarios - here, it doesn’t matter that police car was driving a baby, they still wind up being labeled reckless (high degree of probability of substantial harm + knowing/having reason to know facts which would lead reasonable man to realize conduct creates unreasonable risk of harm)

Question 11

Due Care - Objective vs. Subjective

Answer 11

• due care = level of care that a reasonable person would attain
• q of whether negligence more objective (abstract ordinary being) vs. subjective (personalized standard of judgment) -> law ultimately uses significantly objective (standardized) test

Question 12

Altman v. Aronson

Answer 12

• reviews gross negligence vs. ordinary negligence

- gross negligence = aggravated character, magnified culpability

Question 13

Sudden Emergency Doctrine

Answer 13

• Myhaver v. Knutson
• no time to contemplate
• in absence of antecedent negligence, person confronted w/ sudden emergency cannot be held to same standard of care + accuracy of choice as one who had time to deliberate
• if person encounters emergency w/o negligence on own part + acts reasonably to avoid harm to self or others, no negligence (even if didn’t make best choice)
• note that courts diverge on this - some courts discourage it

Question 14

Knutson Court on Why Sudden Emergency Should Be Used Sparingly

Answer 14

• arg that it’s already built into reasonableness analysis (instructions asked whether person responded to the sudden emergency reasonably)
• emergency = only one factor in reasonable care - don’t want to overemphasize
• matter of argument rather than principle of law

Question 15

Physical Incapacities

Answer 15

• DO get taken into account for reasonable care analysis, according to Third Restatement of Torts
• if physical disability, conduct is negligent if doesn’t conform to that of reasonably careful person w/ same disability
• physical disability generally needs to be significant + objectively verifiable (Restatement says minor ones would be too difficult to account for administratively)
• old age doesn’t count

Question 16

Sudden Incapacitation

Answer 16

• restatement Third
• if substandard conduct b/c of sudden incapacitation or loss of consciousness brought about by physical illness, negligence only if the sudden incapacitation/illness was reasonably foreseeable to the actor

Question 17

Mental and Emotional Disabilities

Answer 17

• Third Restatement
• Unless actor is a child, actor’s mental or emotional disability isn’t considered in determining whether conduct is negligent
• for children, any mental or emotional disability suffered by the specific child would get taken into account, even though definitively not the case for adults

Question 18

Mastland, Inc. v. Evans Furniture, Inc.

Answer 18

Two-part inquiry concerning child’s negligence:

• “subjective” step (capacity of particular child – age, intelligence, + experience)
• followed by an “objective” one (how would reasonable child of like capacity have acted) negligence only if actions fall short of what may be expected of children of similar capacity

Question 19

Dellwo v. Pearson

Answer 19

• in operation of automobile, airplane, or powerboat, a minor should be held to same standard of care as an adult

Question 20

Jolley v. Powell

Answer 20

• says mentally ill still held to same objective reasonableness standard (arguments on burden born by those who occasion it + have more power to prevent it, plus concern of false claims)

Question 21

Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co.

Answer 21

• car accident -> defense is that she had a schizophrenic episode that made her unable to operate the car just before the collision
• court reviews precedents on mental illness - some jurisdictions say not a defense, but others say some forms preclude liability if impacts person’s ability to understand duty of undertaking an action w/ reasonable care, or affects ability to control actions in ordinarily prudent manner
• must also have absence of forewarning
• in this case, holds sudden mental illness (equivalent in effect to sudden heart attack, sudden seizure, stroke or fainting) should be treated as defense

Question 22

Berberian v. Lynn

Answer 22

• used “flexible capacity-based standard” in determining negligence of Alzheimer’s patient – jury was instructed to consider the disease in determining liability + could not be found negligent if lacked capacity to understand consequences of his actions

Question 23

Wright v. Tate

Answer 23

• intellectually disabled adult held to same standard as non-intellectually disabled adults

Question 24

Strict Liability and Culpability

Answer 24

• if you don’t have the capacity to meet the reasonable standard, you’re theoretically not culpable morally but you are legally liable -> strict liability when the law diverges markedly from the moral test