Special knowledge or experience with criminal circumstances – might be allowed to introduce that evidence to see if they behaved reasonably or negligentlyoSuperior attributes treated differently:D may have acted negligently by doing any of the following:1.He did not discover or perceive a risk that reasonably people would have a.Ex. P slips & falls on debris accumulated on floor of D’s store.i.If debris was there long enough that it would come to attention of a reasonable shopkeeper in Ds circumstance through either inspection or some other means & would have cleaned it up & D did not then = negligence
ii.OR if D or his agents were aware of it but didn’t realize it was risky but every other reasonable shopkeeper would know realized risky = negligenceiii.BUT if the risk would NOT have come to attention of reasonable shopkeepers, then D is NOT LIABLE1.UNLESS it did in fact come to his attention then it would be found that reasonable people that notice such things take precautions = negligence 2.He discovered & perceived the risks reasonable persons would, but then ran the risk anyway b/c a.He evaluated the risks & benefits different than a reasonable person would have = negligence b.He evaluated them as a reasonable person would’ve but nevertheless failed to be deterred as reasonable ppl would be = negligence WHEN ARE SPECIAL ABILITIES, DISABILITY, & OTHER PECULIAR ATTRIBUTES PART OF THE “CIRCUMSTANCES” UNDER THE “RP IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES” TEST?OVERALL QUESTION: for things that make someone “less” capable (i.e. deficient) should courts hold that person to the STANDARD person standard or to the standard of a person with those deficiencies? Attributing weaknesses might make it too ready an excuse & lead to fraudulent defenses Usually hold a “lower” person to the higher normal standard for qualities that make someone “better” (i.e. special stregnths, skills, maturity, knowledge, etc.) they are usually held to a HIGHER standard based on their particular strengths (and can be held liable when a standard person wouldn’t) Might discourage people obtaining special skills/knowledge vs. might encourage people to use the skills that they’ve obtained Usually hold the “higher person” to the higher than normal standard ORDINARY PERSONVaughan v. Menlove, (1837) – D was warned to take care of his hayrick which posed a fire hazard to his negihbors, but he did not, it caught fire, spread. P sues D D claims that he used his best judgment & claims that that is the standard for jury instruction on negligence Issue: what is the standard of care for negligence?Holding: illogical to simply rely upon the best judgment of D, court instead demands that the standard of a reasonably prudent person be used to determine negligence.