The Negligence Standard

(1) Duty(2) Breach --> (Negligent Act? Standard of Care?) Apply: Hand Formula, Custom (locality rule)(3) Cause in Fact(4) Proximate Cause(5) Damages_______________________________________________First question is normally whether the D owed the P a duty.Second question is whether the D breached that duty by failing to use reasonable care

A

- Captain stayed awake on his boat during a storm for 48 hours, became insane, was fine when they hit land
RULE: The law intends what is agreeable to reason, i does not suffer an absurdity. Impossible is an excuse in law, and there is no obligation to perform impossible things (TARP test)

- haystack neighbor case
RULE: Even if you don't possess the highest order of intelligence the standard to determine negligence is still measured by reasonable caution.

- farmer assisstant with the IQ of 65 got hurt bc of farmers instructions
RULE: There is medical evidence of P's mental ability so P could not have been contributorily negligent

- P's argument was all the county had to do was put the warning in spanish*Party alleging negligence needs to prove what IS reasonable
RULE: A county, exercising ordinary reasonable care, is required only to take precautions that sufficiently protect travelers exercising ordinary and reasonable care.

- 16 year old girl jumps off lift in lightly dressed clothes bc of religious beliefs
RULE: More subjective test, court focused on the fact that she was a light dressed 16 year old girl instead of her religious duties

Standard of care is that of a person with the same disability under the same conditions

Died walking next to a trolley line
RULE: Deaf man should take such care as a reasonably prudent deaf man would take under the same conditions

Standard of care is what the average reasonable minor of like age, experience, education, and mental capacity do?
Exceptions:Adult Activities(Policy is to discourage activity)

17 shot his 16 friend accidentally
RULE: Adult activity standard - if a minor is to be held to an adult standard of care he must be engaging in an activity that is (a) dangerous to others AND (b) normally engaged in ONLY by adults
(We want kids to hunt so they shouldn't be held to same SOC as adults bc that might discourage hunting)

P's 7 year old son ran across a street and was stuck by a 77 year old man who had defective powers of sight and hearing
RULE: WHen one, by his acts or omissions causes injury to others, his negligence is to be judged by the standard of care usually exercised by the ordinarily prudent man- a boy of 7 is not held to the same standard of care in self-protection

In the operation of automobiles, airplanes, or powerboats, a minor is to be held to the same standard of care as an adult

What would the average reasonable person do under like circumstances?
2 exceptions:ChildrenDisabled
For children, the jury will consider someone of like age, experience and education
For disabled people, the jury will consider the person against a reasonable person with the same disability
§283Unless the actor is a child or has a disability, the standard of conduct to which he must conform to avoid being negligent is that of a reasonable man under like circumstances

P whose own carelessness contributed to their injuries could not collect anything from a D
"Last clear chance" = P was not barred from recovery by his own negligence if the D had the last good opportunity to avoid the accident through the use of due care and failed to do so