-
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
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
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
