Leffler V Sharp

A Tort. The failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm, except for conduct that is intentionally, wantonly, or willfully disregardful of others' rights

Duty, Breach, Cause, Injury

Defendant owed a duty to a class of persons including the Plaintiff to take care not to cause an injury of the kind suffered by the Plaintiff.

Defendant breached the duty of care.

Defendant's breach was an actual and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injury.

Plaintiff's injury is legally cognizable.

The court ruled that Defendant manufacturer owed a duty of care to purchaser despite lack of privity; extended exception to privity rule to manufacturer of things that are dangerous if negligently constructed and the manufacturer knows it is likely to be used without testing by a third person.

The connection or relationship between two parties, each having a legally recognized interest in the same subject matter (such as a transaction, proceeding, or piece of property).

Defendant rented a canoe to decedent and watched and did nothing while the canoe capsized and the decedent called for help. Decedent was intoxicated. Court ruled that absent some sort of prior obligation not to rent the boat to decedent or special relationship, the owner of the property has no duty to help when a person is in peril.

Plaintiff fainted in Taco Bell. Court ruled, consistent with Restatement Third Section 314A that a business that invites members of the public to enter the facility has a duty to provide reasonable assistance to a sick customer even if the business is not responsible for the illness.

Premises liability. Plaintiff sued for damages after he fell through Defendant's roof. The court stated the rules relating to status of entrants to property and corresponding owner duties to maintain safe premises. The court ruled that the defendant transitioned from invitee to trespasser when he entered the roof and that the only duty that defendants owed was not to willfully or wantonly harm him.

Plaintiff was injured when Defendant backed up his truck. The court ruled that the defendant has the duty to exercise ordinary care that a reasonably prudent person would use in the same or similar circumstances. Reasonable care varies with the circumstances- the more dangerous the more care. The court ruled, based on the driver's version of the facts, that the jury's findings that the steps the driver took constituted reasonable care.

Decedent fell while CNAs were transferring her from her wheelchair to bed using a Hoyer lift. The court ruled that the proper standard of care for CNAs is how a reasonably careful person would have acted under the circumstances because CNA training and responsibilities do not rise to the level of professional work.

Plaintiff was injured while he was climbing up the steps of a bus to the platform on which the seats were located when the bus stopped short. The court held that a common carrier owes the highest duty of care to its passengers. This is not strict liability, but it is higher than the reasonable person or reasonable common carrier standard. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial based on this standard.

Plaintiff was injured when an unknown object that was never found kicked out of a lawn mower and hit her. The court ruled that the reasonable person standard of care for mowing the lawn was to inspect the lawn ahead of time, which the defendant did. The court referred to other evidence that showed that defendant did not breach, including that he was watching what he was doing and was not in a hurry.

The plaintiff received an electric shock and was burned when a wire he was swinging on a trolley overpass hit the electric trolley wire. The bridge had an 18 inch parapet and the wire was 4.5 feet below the bridge. The court held there was no liability connected to the choice of the defendant to run its trolley and that only the greatest casualty could have caused an accident like this one and no degree of vigilance could have prevented it.

In a case involving the construction and maintenance of a haystack, the court ruled that the standard of care in a negligence case is to proceed with such reasonable caution as a prudent person would have exercised in such circumstances. The beginning of the reasonable person standard.

An objective standard based on what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances. It is then up to the fact-finder to determine whether the defendant's conduct conformed with this standard.

The trial court granted SJ in favor of parents on the grounds that their 5 year old child, who had hit a pedestrian while riding his bike, was no capable of breach of the duty of care under the tender years doctrine. The court cited favorably the Mass. rule and R2 Section 238A that said that the standard of conduct for a child is that of a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience, but did not adopt it because of stare decisis concerns. The court also dismissed the claims against the parents for failure to plead both elements required to hold parents liable for their child's negligence. 1. the parents were on notice based on specific instances of prior conduct; 2. the parents had the opportunity to control their child.

When the actor knows or should know that he has by his own conduct caused the victim to be physically injured and at imminent risk of further injury, or to be in imminent danger of physical harm. Under such circumstances, the actor has a duty to make reasonable efforts to prevent the victim from suffering further harm or to prevent risk.

When the Defendant has volunteered to protect another form physical injury or property damage, or to rescue another from physical peril. Such a voluntary assumed duty may arise from a contractual promise or a less formal undertaking.

A pre-tort special relationship between Defendant and Plaintiff or the Defendant and a third party who injures the plaintiff may trigger an exception to the general rule of no duty to take steps to rescue. Section 314A of the Restatement of Torts recognizes four special relationships, which give rise to a duty to protect: 1) common carriers and their passengers; 2) innkeepers and their guests; 3) possessors of land and the public to whom they open their land; and 4) Parental relationships.

Attractive Nuisance: a tort law doctrine under which a person maintaining on his premises a condition, instrumentality, machine or other agency, which is dangerous to young children because of the children's inability to appreciate peril and may reasonably be expected to attract them to premises, owes duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the children against dangers of such attraction

A person who enters or remains on the property at the invitation of the possessor as members of the public or in furtherance of the possessor's business or institutional interest. Duty: Owed a duty to exercise care to render the premises reasonably safe.

Persons who, for their own purposes, enter or remain on property with the express or implied permission of the possessor. Duty: To warn of hidden, dangerous conditions on the premises of which the possessor either knows or should know.

The act of knowingly entering another person's property without permission. Duty: No Duty of care owed. They just have to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring the person.

A given defendant's conduct is to be measured by reference to the abilities ordinarily found in other persons. Which other persons are to provide the basis for that comparison varies, depending on the type of incapacity alleged by the Defendant, and perhaps the conduct in question.

Not given special consideration but falls under the objective reasonable person standard.

The objective reasonable person standard.

Restatement allows that a particular person's superior abilities are "circumstances to be taken into account" in determining whether their conduct conformed to the standard of ordinary prudence.

The child's behavior in comparison to other children of the same age, experience, and intelligence.

Parents are not vicariously liable for their children's fault conduct, the defendant must find a form of direct negligence for them to be liable. (negligent supervision or negligent entrustment)

The elderly are subject to the objective standard of a reasonable person

People under 7 don't have the ability to take care or be a reasonable person, so they cannot be found negligent.