VAUGHAN V MENLOVE

1) ISSUES
 Should the defendant be held liable because he failed to act reasonably with respect
to the objective standard of intelligence, or should his personal intelligence be
considered?
 Was the trial court correct in instructing the jury that whether or not Defendant had
been negligent was to be evaluated from an objective standpoint, not taking
Defendant’s intellectual limitations into account?
2) IMPORTANCE
 Until the mid- to late 19th century in the United States and England, there was no
settled standard for tort liability. Courts in the early 19th century often found a
negligence requirement for liability to exist only for common carriers or bailees.
English and U.S. courts later began to move toward a standard of negligence based
on a universal duty of care in light of the "reasonable person" test.
3) ANALYSIS
 “We have assumed that the standard of duty is not the foresight and caution which
this or that particular man is capable of, but the foresight and caution of a prudent
man, -the average prudent man, or as our text-books affect to say, a reasonable
man, standing in this or that man's shoes.”: CJ TINDAL
It is not for the court to define a reasonably prudent man, but for the jury to say
whether he acted like one.
 The reason for such a “test” to be so debated upon is because of how vague the
term “reasonable man” seems to be sufficiently well understood that a court need
not define it, but juries can apply it without any instructions and in fact have always
done so, and that the court may assume that every man has a capacity to judge
events equal to that of the man of ordinary prudence.

4) CITATIONS
 Coggs v. Bernard (2 Ld. Raym. 909)
William Bernard undertook to carry several barrels of brandy belonging to John
Coggs from Brooks Market, Holborn to Water Street. Bernard was not offered
compensation for his work as it was gratuitous. As the brandy was being unloaded at
the Water Street cellar, a barrel was staved and 150 gallons were lost. Coggs
brought an action on the case against Bernard, alleging he had undertaken to carry
the barrels but had spilled them through his negligence. Holt CJ found that Mr.
Bernard [, was negligent in carrying the casks as his responsibility to Coggs was not
formally contractual in nature]. Instead, his responsibility rested on the trust that
Coggs placed in him to use due care in transporting the casks, and by his tacit
acceptance of that trust by taking the casks into his custody. Thus, because Bernard
acted negligently when he was under a responsibility to use care, he was held to be
in breach of a trust.
 Thomas v. Morgan (2 Cr. M. & R. 496)
The defendant was the owner of a dog which had chased and killed sheep belonging
to the plaintiff, but the defendant had no knowledge of any propensity in his dog to
worry sheep.
The plaintiff was no suited
Maule J: “The wrongful act is the keeping of a ferocious dog knowing its savage
disposition; and that an action of this kind may be maintained without alleging any
negligence "