vii .Houseguests as licensees are entitled to rights as invitees
in some jurisdictions. Affirmative duty to keep premises safe for all classes.
Rowland v. Christian
III.Negligence – Breach1.Breach Framework 1.Standard of care
What was the Standard of care
»ordinary care of a reasonable person in circumstances to prevent
foreseeable injuriesassociated with risk (baselinerisk)
no duty to exceed this standard
ii .extraordinary care
»Heightened standard for persons of professional or commercial expertise (e.g.doctors, lawyers, commoncarriers)
Professional: objective 'ordinary expert'; professional custom dispositive
Commercial: account for industry custom, not dispositve
iii .Exceptional Standard
Adults with disabilities
physical disabilities are
; “reasonable person with disability”
mental disabilities are
Children: 2 Standards
Tender years: <7/7-14/14-18›no breach/rebuttable not capable/rebuttable capable
Subjective standard›reasonable child standard
Did ∆ Breach this standard?i .Objective Interpretation
ordinary care under circumstances»Extraordinary Care
experts by professional custom
commercial actors in light of trade
ii .Subjective Interpretation
iii .Economic View
»B<PxL (burden < Probability of Accident x Cost of Loss)
iv .Res Ipsa
»No other likely explanation2.A boy mowing the lawn was held to be not negligent.
Reasonable person would look ahead where he was mowing. The object flying out was not reasonable foreseeable given the standard precautions. (Campbell)
3.Boy playing with 7 foot wire was not
when his wire struck an electric cable,some 7 feet below pedestrian bridge. (
)4.Jury instruction for bus to follow reasonable person standard rejected.
Common carriers are held to an extraordinary standard: the highest degree of care. (Jones)
2.Meaning of Negligence1.Risk
1.Negligence is about controlling risks2.reasonable precautions must be taken to mitigate
accidents3.establish a baseline risk by evaluating circumstances2.
Standard negligence is about what a reasonable person would do in circumstances given a risk.
The CNAs responsible for transferring the patient were not 'learned professionals'
thus must be held to reasonable person standards, not professional standards. (Meyers v. Heritage Enters.)
professional standard of care was followed and thus there was no breach as the professional standard mitigated risk.
Thus driver not liable, jury coulddisregard testimony it did not believe. (
Martin v. Evans