Torts: Section 2 Fall, 2002 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 18
About This Presentation
Title:

Torts: Section 2 Fall, 2002

Description:

Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not ... is a Hollywood stunt driver, who knows how to spin out of the way of a collision ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:42
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 19
Provided by: ericn9
Category:
Tags: fall | section | spinout | torts

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Torts: Section 2 Fall, 2002


1
DUTY BREACH CAUSATION DAMAGES DEFENSES
2
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
Negligence is the doing of something which a
reasonably prudent person would not do, or the
failure to do something which a reasonably
prudent person would do, under circumstances
similar to those shown by the evidence. Californi
a BAJI 3.10
3
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
The reasonably prudent person standard is 1)
external, and 2) objective.
4
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
Arguments for an objective standard
Arguments for a subjective standard
5
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
A child, riding her bike on the sidewalk,
attempts to pass a pedestrian, loses control of
the bike, and hits him. What is the standard of
care?
6
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
A sixteen year old, riding a motorcycle, loses
control during a turn and hits a pedestrian.
What standard of care applies?
7
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
A thirteen year old hunting in the woods shoots
at movement in the bushes and hits a person.
8
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
  • Reasonably prudent person standard sometimes
    takes the individuals capacity into account
  • children / child-appropriate activities

9
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
A deaf driver enters an intersection, with the
light, and is struck by an emergency vehicle,
running with its sirens on. What is the standard
of care?
10
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
  • Reasonably prudent person standard sometimes
    takes the individuals capacity into account
  • physical disability
  • children / child-appropriate activities

11
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
A car enters an intersection dangerously close to
another vehicle, leaving an ordinary driver no
time to avoid the collision. Plaintiff is a
Hollywood stunt driver, who knows how to spin out
of the way of a collision under these
circumstances, but she fails to execute the
maneuver properly and is injured. What standard
of care applies?
12
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
  • Reasonably prudent person standard sometimes
    takes the individuals capacity into account
  • physical disability
  • children / child-appropriate activities
  • actor with superior capacity (Restatement view)
  • In that light, how should Lynch v. Rosenthal be
    decided?

13
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
  • Reasonably prudent person standard sometimes
    takes the individuals capacity into account
  • physical disability
  • children / child-appropriate activities
  • actor with superior capacity (Restatement view)
  • It does not take mental incapacity into
    account!
  • EXCEPT Lynch v. Rosenthal!

14
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
Lynch v. Rosenthal Calvert, J. While there
was evidence suggesting that the plaintiff
understood that his behavior exposed him to an
unnecessary risk, there was also evidence that he
lacked the capacity to act on that knowledge.
Therefore, his contributory negligence was an
issue for the jury to decide.
15
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
Arguments for an objective standard The
innocent victim shouldnt bear the risk of the
actors incapacity Society should be able to
protect its members by requiring compliance with
standards Claims of lack of capacity are likely
to be incredible or not capable of measurement A
subjective standard would be vague, with a
different standard for every individual
Arguments for a subjective standard If
liability is supposed to be based on the exercise
of a choice (Holmes), whether the actor had the
capacity to change his behavior is important If
the actor lacks capacity, he or she cant be
induced to comply. Some forms of lack of
capacity are both credible and measurable. What
a jury thinks is reasonable will vary from state
to state and jury to jury
16
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
Doctrine Reasonably prudent person under the
circumstances. RPP takes on attributes of
childhood, physical disability. Whether mental
conditions can be taken into account is an area
where there is room for some argument. Skills
How to work with precedent. Cessante ratione
legis, cessat et ipsa lex. Evaluation
17
Negligence B. The Central Concept 2. The
Reasonable Person
Evaluation Can an argument be made that an
internal, subjective standard would be preferable
to the external, objective standard? Is there a
third alternative? Is the reasonable person a
gender / culture neutral concept?
18
Assignment
  • pp. 60-69
  • Whose account of the role of judge and jury is
    more persuasive Cardozos or Holmess?
  • Is Cardozos opinion consistent with his
    decision in Adams (p. 40) and Green (n. 3 p.
    42)?
  • Are Bethel (p. 50) and Andrews consistent?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com