EXCEPTION inherently dangerous activities usually undertaken by adults then use

Exception inherently dangerous activities usually

This preview shows page 2 - 5 out of 9 pages.

- EXCEPTION: inherently dangerous activities usually undertaken by adults, then use the objective adult standard or care (e.g. driving a car; hunting; using firearms) Intoxication - Intoxication is NO excuse for failure to act as a reasonable prudent person would act - Intoxicated persons are held to the same standard as a sober person - Where intoxication is involuntary, the standard of conduct is that of a reasonable person with the same disability Insanity/Mental Capacity - Those with mental deformities, absent from children, are held to the standard of a regular reasonably prudent person - Mental deficiency DOES NOT relieve one of tort liability; held to the same standard as a sane person for public policy reasons - May be a factor in determining contributory negligence Sudden Emergency Doctrine - A person confronted with sudden or unexpected circumstances calling for immediate action is not expected to exercise the judgment of one acting under normal conditions - It DOES NOT change the standard of reasonable care - If reasonable minds differ as to the preferred course of action in an emergency, a Δ who makes a reasonable choice will not be held liable for having failed to select what an expert or a jury might later decide 2
Image of page 2
as the best course. - Young v. Clark [car wreck case] - An instruction of sudden emergency is not available where the crisis was of the Δ’s own making. Medical Malpractice/Negligence - The standard of practice in the community must be shown by affirmative evidence - Departure from the accepted standard of care must be established by expert medical testimony - The testimony of other physicians that they would have followed a different course of treatment than that followed by the defendant is not sufficient to establish malpractice unless… Superior Skill/Knowledge - RULE: the person that has the superior skill or knowledge is held to a higher standard of care. - A person with superior skill, training or expertise MUST exercise those abilities - Talent should not be wasted Illness - The conduct of an actor during a period of sudden incapacitation or loss of consciousness resulting from physical illness is negligent ONLY if the sudden incapacitation or loss of consciousness was reasonably foreseeable to the actor. Attractive Nuisance - The owner of dangerous premises knows or has good reason to believe, that children so young as to be ignorant of the danger, he is bound to take precautions to keep them from the premises, as man of ordinary care and prudence would take. - Chicago R.R. v. Krayenbuhl – child hurt on train turntable Judicially Declared Standard - When act occurs repeatedly so the court 3
Image of page 3
decides that should be the standard for a particular act - Helling v. Carey [glaucoma case] Legal Malpractice - To prevail in a legal malpractice case, the Π must establish: The applicable standard of care A breach of that standard, AND a causal link between the violation and the harm - Judgmental immunity – an informed profession judgment made with reasonable care and diligence cannot be the basis of a legal malpractice claim - Biomet v. Finnagan
Image of page 4
Image of page 5

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture