The Reasonable Person Flashcards
Vaughan v. Menlove
i. Facts:
1) The D owned a haystack that was placed very near the property line near the P’s cottages, the P continually warned the D that he needed to take care of it and move it and told him that it was unsafe. D acknowledges the complaint but does nothing about it. The haystack eventually caught fire and burned the hay and the cottage.
2) The D argued jury charge should have considered whether D acted with bona fide best judgement rather than gross negligence
ii. Issue:
1) Is D liable for damages that resulted from his placement of his haystack on his property in such way that damage was likely to result
iii. Holding:
1) Sergeant Talfourd
a) Lawyer for P
a) A man must use his own property as not to damage that of another
b) Standard of ordinary prudence
2) Richards
a) Lawyer for the D
a) D owed P no duty because no K existed
b) When no K existed, bona fide is the standard and it is “SUBJECTIVE”
3) Tindal
a) D was NEG and is therefore liable for his Consequences of that NEG
a) Prudent man standard is law
b) Degree of care required is higher w/ respect to things borrowed
c) Juries have had no difficulty with the prudent man standard
4) Park
a) D is liable and jury charge was correct
a) D ignored repeated warnings if any change is appropriate it would be increasing P damages
b) Charging the D with PUNITITVE Damages
5) Vaughan
a) All have duty to deal with own property as not to injure that of others
b) D grossly NEG
iv. Notes TL
1) The big fight in this case is about whether to apply the subjective test of NEG or the objective test of NEG.
2) Subjective test
a) Did the actor behave in a manner consistent with their abilities?
b) Hypo
i) If an Insane person kills someone and is acting to the best of his abilities is he liable?
ii) In subscribing to a subjective theory, no he would get off.
3) Objective Test
a) Did the actor behave in a manor consistent with what the reasonable person would have done.
b) Hypo
i) If an Insane person kill someone and is acting to the best of his abilities is he liable?
ii) In subscribing to an Objective theory, Yes, he would be held liable.
4) Arguments in favor of the Subjective theory
a) It is more moral but difficult to prove
i) Why is it more moral?
One. It is not always fair to hold everyone to same standard as the average person,
Two. It is very hard to tell what a reasonable person would do.
ii) The term bona fide, means he was acting to the best of his judgement.
5) Arguments in favor of the Objective theory
a) Consistency of the standard makes it easier to judge that standard across the board
b) Subjective theory allows substandard people to escape liability.
c) Subjective theory gives rise in the stupidity defense, OH I DIDN’T KNOW ANY BETTER
6) The profile of a reasonable person so far is
a) Objective
7) What caused the destruction of the cottages?
a) Why did the hay catch fire?
i) He stacked the hay incorrectly.
One. Is he liable?
First. Yes,
b) He is in the business of cutting and growing hay, so he should know that stacking hay incorrectly will cause it to catch fire.
c) He is held to the standard of a reasonable farmer, not a reasonable person.
8) If you were suing your doctor for medical mal practice, would you rather have the jury judge him as a doctor or as a reasonable person?
Coggs v. Bernard
i. Notes
1) Bailments
a) Consensual agreements under which goods are delivered to another with the intention that they be redelivered at some future time.
b) Each bailment had its own distinct standard of care
i) If both parties benefit ordinary care is the standard
ii) If he benefits held to Slight Negligence
iii) If the other benefits, Gross Negligence
2) Six types of bailments
a) Gratuitous bailment for safekeeping (depositum)
b) Bailment for the bailee’s use (commodatum)
c) A simple Pawn (Vadium)
d) Bailment for Hire (locatio rei)
e) Bailment whereby the bailee agrees for a fee to operate or manage the thing bailed (locatio operis faciendi)
Bailment of a thing to be managed (not merely stored) by the bailee without compensation (mandatum)
Holmes the Common Law
i. Notes
1) Jury’s objective definitions of a prudent man, not the D subjective thought of a prudent men should govern negligence cases
2) Standards of law are standards of general application
3) Average conduct is necessary to the General welfare
a) Courts don’t care about personal peculiarities
b) Blameworthiness is assigned according to the average man
c) One is held Liable when he fails to exercise the foresight of which he is capable
d) No liability when one has a distinct defect making certain precautions available
i) Handicapped,
ii) Insane,
Minors.
Roberts v. Ring
i. Facts
1) Old 77 yr old man is driving his car on a crowded street going less than 5 MPH a small 7 year old boy riding on the back of a buggy jumps off and runs in front of his car. The boy is struck and run over by the old man. P sues for damages
ii. Issues
1) Was the instruction to the jury to consider both P’s and D’s NEG correct?
iii. Holding
1) Jury charge was incorrect therefore, reversed for a new trial
a) Ordinary man could have stopped a car traveling 5mh with a child 5 feet away.
i) D hit and ran over the child
ii) If the D saw the boy he wasn’t alert in stopping the car
iii) If the D didn’t see the boy, he did not exercise proper look out
iv) D’s infirmities if anything will be held against him
One. May present a reason why the D should not have been driving a car in the first place making him negligent
b) P’s NEG held to standard of an ordinary 7 yr old boy
i) Mini objective standard
ii) Situation would have been different had the 7 yr old boy caused injury
iv. Notes TL
1) Profile a reasonable person is a reasonable person
a) Should the age of actors be included in the profile given to the jury?
i) Objective standard of a reasonable person is applied to the D
ii) Objective standard of a reasonable person is not applied to the boy because he is the P
2) Hypo
a) What if he swerved and hit an old women while trying to avoid the kid?
i) Could the new D sue the kid?
ii) the court would hold that because the Kid is a D we hold him to the objective standards
3) The Objective standard
a) It does not change for those that have reached their majority.
b) It does change for minors depending on whether they are the D or the P.
i) P they are held to a subjective standard
ii) D they are held to an objective standard
c) Why should we take this view?
i) Because it is moral to treat the young as such.
ii) It is not fair to treat everyone the same.
iii) In doing this he is supporting compensation for P over Justice for the D
Tommy says this is a very sophisticated opinion
Beginners and experts
i. Notes TL
1) If a beginner injures somebody, still held to an objective standard of care
2) If one presents greater or lesser skill in a particular art, they may be held to a higher or lower standard of care, than the objective standard of care.
3) Hypo
a) Skiing first time on slopes and crashes into the lift line and impales a person waiting? Negligent skiing?
i) Yes because objective standard for skiers assumes skiers know how to ski
ii) To hold otherwise would reduce recovery a lot
Inexperienced driver continues to get the benefits of the lower standard against his driving instructor but not against and injured pedestrian who did not assume the risk
Daniels v. Evans
i. Facts:
1) P son a minor was operating a motorcycle when it collided with the D’s auto, killing the minor. The trial court found for the P. D appealed arguing that the jury charge stating 19 yr. olds should be judged according to a standard for minors was incorrect
ii. Issue
1) Did the trial court judge err in charging the jury to consider the P’s act according to standard for minors?
iii. Holding:
1) Yes the charge was erroneous
2) When minors engage in activities like operating a vehicle or similarly powered device they forfeit their right to be held to a lower standard
3) Immature individuals are no less prone to accidents than adults
4) Driving statute
a) Requires obedience to all traffic laws
b) All drivers have a duty of care to each other to obey all traffic laws subject to adult standard of care
iv. Notes TL
1) Should the Kid be judged as an adult or as a kid?
a) In this case, the statute says that he is responsible as an adult, because he has a drivers license.
b) Hypo, Is the actor engaged in child like conduct or adult like activity?
i) 16 yr old riding a bike down a canyon and hits an old lady killing her, is the 16 yr old held to a adult?
ii) How about guns? When shooting a gun should a child be held to an objective adult standard, by calling it an adult like activity
iii) How about driving an ATV?
iv) How about driving a tractor
v) Howe about driving a Golf Cart?
One. All of the above examples need to be analyzed on an individual basis to determine if they are dangerous.
c) In the case at hand the Minor is charged as an adult because he has a drivers license
d) Activities which require a license are adult like and therefore conduct is held to that standard
Age at which a person is able to vote doesn’t work either. The age of getting a DL is what the court focuses on in this case.
Breunig v American Family Ins.
i. Facts
1) D is the insurer of women who suffered a sudden mental infirmary when she was driving the car causing her to speed up and ram the truck in front of her which indeed injured the P
2) D argues that the women was not negligent because delusion came upon her W/O warning, Jury found that the women did know of her condition and awarded 7K to P,
3) D appeals this decision
ii. Issue:
1) Is the women’s delusion a sufficient condition to avoid liability under the negligence doctrine
iii. Holding:
1) Jury was capable of reviewing the evidence and determining that the women knew of her condition prior to the accident and that operating her vehicle in such a a condition was NEG
a) D discussed matter with doctor and Daughter, but Evidence is not strong enough
2) The question of liability in every case must depend on the kind and nature of insanity
a) Must affect insane person’s ability to understand and appreciate duty to driver car with care
b) Must affect ability to control car in an ordinarily prudent manner
c) There must be an absence of notice or forewarning of the onset of a delusion
3) Public policy
a) If one of two innocents are to suffer a loss, the loss should fall to the one who occasioned the injury
b) Induce those interested in the estate of the insane to restrain and control him
c) Fear of insanity defense leading to false claims of insanity to avoid liability
iv. Notes TL:
1) At what interval before an accident is an individual responsible for knowing they are insane and stopping that.
2) Hypo
a) Epilepsy?
i) You are not liable if you don’t know you are epileptic,
ii) If you do know you have epilepsy you are negligent if you drive.
3) Judge says a reasonable jury could have said she should give up her keys.
a) Does the level of insanity affect your ability to drive?
Gould v. American Family Insurance
i. Holding:
1) Institutionalized D was not held liable for injuring paid caretaker
a) Attacked policy reasons cited in Breunig
i) Caretakers of the mentally disabled assume some risk of caring for mentally disables
ii) Those interested in estate of Institutionalized do not need further incentive to control their behavior
iii) Highly unlikely that a sane person would fake insanity in an institutionalized setting to escape liability
ii. Notes TL:
Qua’s view has been dislodged by this case
Jankee v Clark County
i. Holding
1) Institution not liable for restraining P an Institutionalized insane person who injured himself by jumping out of a window in an attempt to escape
Liability would have brought about a perverse result such that institution would have put bars on windows to protect itself from liability rather than protecting the institutionalized from harm
j. Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen
i. Facts:
1) P is a blind man who is walking along a city road. The D is the city who had a worker working on a road construction site. The worker moved a barricade that would have otherwise alerted the individual to the problem and the blind man was injured in the ditch where the barrier was removed.
ii. Issues
1) Was city workers removal of the barrier a negligent act for which the city of Aberdeen is liable to the P for the Injuries he suffered as a result?
iii. Holding:
1) The D is liable for the P’s injuries
a) D duty to protect from the ditch was a continuous duty
i) Removal of the one barrier was a breach of that duty
ii) Duty is to all persons who will sue the sidewalk including the infirmed
b) P had a duty to use the sidewalk with the care of a reasonable blind person, and he did so
iv. Notes:
1) Profile of a reasonable city?
a) Must take into account that blind people may use the city, just like people with wheelchairs may do.
Yes we do
Restatements of Torts SS 11
Conduct of a person with a disability is negligent if it does not conform to that of a reasonably careful person with the same disability.
Poyner v Loftus
i. Holding
1) Legally blind P claims for injury sustained while walking up D ramp dismissed because P turned head and kept walking up the ramp when somebody called his name. Had he not turned his head they would have seen the dangerous condition.
m. Denver and Rio Grande RR v Peterson
i. Holding
1) Wealth has no bearing in determining the standard of care to which a D owes another
2) Such a holding in the reverse could unwarrantingly incentivize the jury into awarding damages
ii. Notes TL
1) my 10 year old kid is going to a swimming party at a neighbor’s house. Is there a difference if the party is at Tom Cruise’s house versus my poor friend’s house? Party with poor friends and rich friends; rich friends = adequate child care; poor friends = no adequate child care
NO THERE IS NOT
