Standard of Care, Substance General

Question 1

Brown v. Kendall

Answer 1

[Dog stick - ordinary care] An individual, who during the commission of a lawful act uses ordinary care, is not liable for injuries caused to another party as a result of his act. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish facts which are essential to enable him to recover (must show lack of ordinary care).

Question 2

Adams v. Bullock

Answer 2

[Swinging wire - ordinary care] Ordinary caution does not involve forethought of extraordinary peril.

Question 3

Bethel v. NYC Transit

Answer 3

[Broken bus sea - ordinary care for common carrier] A common carrier is subject to the same duty of care as any other potential tortfeasor reasonable care under all of the circumstances of the particular case.

Question 4

Vaughn v. Menlove

Answer 4

[Hay Ignited – RUPERTA] Adhere to the rule, which requires in all cases a regard to caution such as a man of ordinary prudence would observe. [Best judgment is immaterial]