Vaughan v. Menlove
3 Bing. (N.C.) 468 (1837).
Plaintiff won in the lower court with the reasonable and prudent man standard.
Question
Was the jury wrong to deliver the verdict here?
Rule
Difference between the reasonable prudent man and the “acting bona fide to the best of his judgement”.
Facts
Here, the defendant built up a hay rick on the border of his property. He was warned several times that it would likely catch fire and would damage the plaintiff’s cottages. However, he did not make any changes to the location of the rick. It caught fire and damaged his barn and property before also destroying the plaintiff’s cottages.
Analysis
The trial court had used a subjective standard. The Appellate court here used an objective standard. Here are the benefits for both:
Subjective
- Pro: Each person has a standard tailored to their circumstances (an intellectually challenged individual would not need to rise to the standard of the average intellect).
- Con: Challenging to apply
Objective
- Pro: This standard is more cautious. Those who have done negligent acts are more likely to be held accountable.
- Pro: Easier to apply generally
- Con: More unfair to those who are intellectually challenged.
Takeaway
Currently, the objective standard of the reasonable prudent person is the rule of law.
Additional Notes
We could have a law of negligence that had a subjective standard. However, we don’t want to use this standard for a couple of reasons.
- First, it’s too dangerous to have a lower standard. Situations such as those in Menlove would go unnoticed.
- Additionally, people lie and therefore it is very difficult for a jury to ascertain negligence consistently.
One of the benefits of using the objective reasonable person standard is that it gives us more stability. The standard is portable (it can shift from case to case easily).
Also, we don’t personalize the objective standard to the jury. Because if you do that, you are in effect applying a subjective test to the jury (how would the jury react in their own lives?). This is purely a hypothetical standard.
Delair v. McAdoo
324 Pa. 392 (1936).
Plaintiff won in trial court and was awarded excessive damages. Defendant moved to dismiss that it never should have gone to the jury. That motion was denied and is now reviewed by this court.
Question
Should a reasonable person know that old tires can be dangerous and held negligent for not changing them?
Rule
If the hazard is too great compared to the burden of reasonable inspection and care, the defendant can be held liable.
Holding
Trial courts ruling to deny for directed judgement is affirmed.
Facts
Defendant was passing a vehicle when his tire blew out causing him to swerve into the plaintiff. The tire was worn down to the “fabric” meaning that it was likely to blow at any time.
Analysis
It is common knowledge that drivers must be aware of their car’s condition. If the tires are worn down, drivers have a duty to properly inspect and care for the tires. Because the risk here is so high, the rule must be rigid that a reasonable prudent person follow these rules. Failure to do so can result in liability.
Takeaway
What should we do in situations where people are unaware of the common rules (such as checking a tire, or not messing with animals)? Should they be held to a different standard? No, those people need to conform to the community. The community does not need to conform to them.
Additional Notes
Even though most people don’t know much about cars, there is a minimal requirement of understanding. How do we determine this minimal standard? By reviewing case law. Here, the case law said that the parts of the car needed to be maintained by a reasonable inspection.
So, if they don’t know – they need to rise to the minimal standard
If they do know, should they be held to a higher standard? – It depends. Here, we are moving to a subjective standard. So, there is a challenge of raising the standard for those people. However, there are a lot of situations when the court raises the standard for those situations anyways.
Trimarco v. Klein
56 N.Y.2d 98 (1982).
Trimarco is the plaintiff. Won in the trial court.
Question
How do we determine if the action of the landlord was negligent?
Rule
Look towards the custom of the people in that practice to see if they are following a certain standard of care.
Holding
The plaintiff did not live up to the standards of the custom. However, they reverse for other reasons.
Facts
The defendant was living in an apartment. He had taken a shower and upon leaving, the glass shower door shattered which caused extensive injuries.
Analysis
The trial court was correct in providing the instructions to include custom. If the defendant was not aware of the change of custom, they need not be held liable. However, it is up to the jury to establish a customary practice, derived from expert testimony.
Takeaway
Customs are vital to understanding what the reasonably prudent person would work.
Additional Notes
This is the way you prove what the standard is. “Evidence of Custom” We are asking, “What was the customary practice that was followed by the owners of property when determining when the doors needed to be changed?”
Why is it useful to use the customary practice? It tells the jury what might be useful in determining what an objective person would do.
What is a custom? A fairly well defined practice.
Who offers up information about what the custom is? Both parties. Here, the plaintiff can say “it is custom for the door to be changed” but the defendant can say “it is customary for the door to be changed after the tenant submits a maintenance request.” Both can be helpful for each side as they form the instructions given to the jury.
Cordas v. Peerless Transportation. Co.
27 N.Y.S.2d 198 (1941).
Question
Can one act negligently in an emergency situation without being found negligent?
Rule
If a person is in an emergency situation, they need not be found liable. This is dependent on the facts found by the jury.
Holding
Here, the defendant is not negligent, having acted out in response to an emergency. Case dismissed.
Facts
The defendant is a Taxi driver. The plaintiff were those injured by his taxi. While the driver was waiting for patrons, an individual ran into the car (being chased for robbing another), threatened him with a gun to leave right away. The driver did so, but shortly after braked hard, and dove out of the car and began to run away. Then, he turned around to see the car continuing onto the sidewalk where it hit some pedestrians. Injuries were slight, but the plaintiffs claimed that he was negligent for threatening the life of others despite his life being at risk.
Analysis
Here, the court says that the defendant is not negligent for preserving his own life. He did not create the danger, and because of the stressfulness of the situation, he could not be held at fault for potentially clouded judgement. “To call him negligent out be to brand him coward.”
Takeaway
One can act in an emergency situation without being found negligent. However, if the individual causes the dangerous situation, they can still be found liable for negligence.
Additional Notes
Evaluating the conduct of an actor given their circumstances. Do we take them into account? Yes
The plaintiff argues that it is too dangerous to let a vehicle running down the road without being operated, regardless of the circumstances. The court disagrees and says that an emergency can provide for a different standard. However, one is not relieved of all responsibility, but must look at what a reasonable person would have done considering the emergency.
The important thing to notice is the conduct prior to the emergency occurring. If a person was negligent prior to the emergency, or the emergency arose out of the conduct, emergency cannot be used as a defense.
Is there an “emergency doctrine”?
Roberts v. State of Louisiana
396 So.2d 566 (1981)
Roberts is the plaintiff. He claimed that the state was guilty of negligence and the trial court dismissed his case.
Question
How do we determine the level of care a disabled person must follow?
Rule
A person who is blind “must take the precautions, be they more or less, which the ordinary reasonable man would take if he were blind.”
Holding
There was no negligence, case dismissed.
Facts
Roberts (age 75) was standing near the concession stand at the post office when the defendant’s employee (being blind) bumped into him causing him to fall. Roberts claimed that he was negligent because he was not using his cane to guide his way to the bathroom.
Analysis
A person with a physical disability cannot be required to live according to a higher standard of care than the rest of the world. However, their actions must be reasonable for their circumstances. Therefore, he must act as a reasonable person would act if they were blind.
Here, the defendant was not negligent, the jury determined from the evidence of others that it is not customary to use a can for short trips when the person is already familiar with their surroundings. Here, the defendant had his mobility training and had good mobility skills. Therefore, because there was no other evidence to indicate that the defendant was negligent (walking too fast, not paying attention), he cannot be held liable.
Takeaway
Those who are disabled are not held to a higher standard of care (that would be unreasonable). However, their actions must be reasonable for anyone else who was in their situations.
Additional Notes
We can hold physical disabilities to a different standard because it is still reasonably prudent. However, we don’t hold mental disabilities to a different standard because this is subjective (see Vaughn v. Menlove).
The act of not using the cane is not what could have been seen as negligent, it was that the cane wasn’t available at all.
What about those who have superior physical abilities, should they be held to a higher standard? There are suggestions that the answer is yes, but no cases have have made a difference between superior physical characteristics and superior knowledge (see Vaughn v. Menlove).
Robinson v. Lindsay
92 Wash.2d 410 (1979).
Lindsay (defendant) received positive verdict from jury. However, the court felt that they had poorly instructed the jury and motioned for a new trial. Defendant appealed.
Question
Whether a minor operating a snowmobile is to be held to an adult standard of care.
Rule
When a child is engaged in inherently dangerous activities, they are held to an adult standard of care. Otherwise, the normal specialized standard of care for children is applied.
Holding
This is a dangerous activity, the court needs to follow an adult standard of care. Order affirmed.
Facts
The defendant was a 13 year old boy driving the snowmobile of defendant Lindsay. Robinson was on a tube being towed by the vehicle when her finger was caught in the rope and severed. She suffered extensive damage and lost full control of her finger. The trial court used a specialized standard of care for minors when giving the jury instructions. Determining that the instructions should include those to an adult standard, the judge granted a new trial.
Analysis
Most of the time, the specialized standard of care for children is appropriate. Children should not be expected to live up to the same standard as adults, being young and immature. To do so would limit the imaginative thinking and adventurous excitement of childhood. However, when the child is operating a dangerous vehicle, such as one that requires adult licensure, then they should be held to a higher standard. This is because we should not allow someone to operate such a vehicle with a limited amount of degree or competence. Therefore, there should be a new trial looking at the facts in like of a reasonable adult.
Takeaway
Children normally have a specialized standard that is not as intense as a reasonable standard for adults. However, when operating specially dangerous objects, they will be held to an adult standard of care.
Additional Notes
A child can be held to a lower standard of reasonableness for a child’s age. This original standard is a mixture of an objective and subjective standard. Don’t look to deeply into this, this standard is adopted by the courts so children can continue to enjoy life.
However, when do we use an adult standard instead of a child standard?
- Normal activity for an adult
- Engaging in inherently dangerous activities
The better standard is the inherently dangerous activities standard. Take for instance deer hunting. Young kids can learn to shoot a gun (not an activity reserved for adults only) but is dangerous. So, this is more encompassing of activities that could be found to hold children negligent for dangerous activities.
Breunig v. American Family Ins. Co.
45 Wis.2d 536 (1970).
Plaintiff is Breunig who sued the insurance company of one Erma Veith. Verdict in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.
Question
What is the standard of care for those who suffer from “insane” conditions?
Rule
When the condition (insanity) is known, they can be held liable. On the other hand, if the conduct is incapable of avoidance and unknown to them previously, they do not need to be held liable.
Holding
Here, she could have known she was subject to these. Therefore, it would be up to a jury to find the facts. Judgement affirmed.
Facts
Defendant claimed to see a white light on the back of a vehicle, and believing God to be guiding her, followed it onto the wrong side of the highway (she was not aware of doing so). She saw the truck and sped up, believing God would help her fly to safety. Later, she woke up in the hospital as a result of the crash.
Analysis
Under most circumstances, a person who is found to be legally insane is held to the same standard as the reasonable prudent person. However, if there is no escape (driving) when an unexpected psychotic episode arises (no previous history), there may be room for a defense.
Here, however, there were sufficient facts presented to show that the defendant could have reasonably assumed such an episode could occur. Therefore, the facts are left for the jury to determine. Consequently, the jury verdict found in the trial court stands.
Additional Notes
A sudden occurring mental condition should be treated the same way as a sudden occurring physical condition. See Petty.
Disclaimer
The content contained in this article may contain inaccuracies and is not intended to reflect the opinions, views, beliefs, or practices of any academic professor or publication. Instead, this content is a reflection on the author’s understanding of the law and legal practices.
