Torts: Negligence

What duty does a lessor of realty owe?

The duty to disclose known, hidden defects. (known or has reason to know) No duty to make repairs to defects. No duty to continue to maintain the premises (unless lessor leases only a portion of the premises...then lessor is subject to liability for dangerous conditions in those portions of the premises over which lessor still retains control). Look at: who retains control?

In a tort action, the jury determines that the plaintiff suffered $100,000 in damages and was 40% at fault, and the defendant suffered $100,000 in damages and was 60% at fault. In a contributory negligence jurisdiction, the plaintiff will have a right to recover __________ and the defendant will have a right to recover __________.

$0; $0 Contributory negligence completely bars P's right to recovery at common law. *keep in mind exception: Last Clear Chance

If a statute providing for a criminal penalty is applicable to a common law negligence case, the statute's specific duty will replace the more general common law duty of care. Which of the following does a plaintiff NOT need to show to prove the availability of the statutory standard? A: The plaintiff suffered physical injury because of the defendant s violation of the statute. B: The plaintiff is in the class intended to be protected by the statute. C: The statute was designed to prevent the type of harm that the plaintiff suffered. D: The standards set out in the statute are clearly defined.

A: The plaintiff suffered physical injury because of the defendant s violation of the statute. What is required: 1. same class of harm 2. same class of P 3. specific standards

Which of the following statements is not true as to the reasonable person standard for evaluating whether a defendant's conduct was negligent? A: The reasonable person is considered to have the same mental characteristics as the defendant. B: The reasonable person is considered to have the same physical characteristics as the defendant. C: The defendant is deemed to have knowledge of things known by the average member of the community. D: The defendant is expected to know his physical handicaps and to exercise the care of a person with such knowledge.

A: The reasonable person is considered to have the same mental characteristics as the defendant. Defendant must act as would a person with average mental ability. Unlike the rule as to physical characteristics, individual mental handicaps are not considered; i.e., low IQ is no excuse. Likewise, insanity is no defense.

Which of the following is correct regarding breach of the duty of care? A: Whether a breach occurred is a question for the trier of fact B: Proof of a defendant's breach must be established by direct evidence C: Proof of custom is controlling determining whether a breach occurred D: Whether a breach occurred is a question of law to be decided by a judge

A: Whether a breach occurred is a question for the trier of fact Breach may be established by circumstantial evidence (res ipsa loquitur), not only by direct evidence. Custom or usage may be used to establish the SoC but does not control the question of whether certain conduct amounted to negligence.

In a tort action, the jury determines that the plaintiff suffered $100,000 in damages and was 40% at fault, and the defendant suffered $100,000 in damages and was 60% at fault. In a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, the plaintiff will have a right to recover __________ and the defendant will have a right to recover __________.

P has a right to recover $60,000 from D, and D has a right to recover $40,000 from P. Ds damages will be offset against P's damages, and P will have a net recovery of $20,000. Pure comparative negligence: P's damage award reduced by percentage of fault attributable to her.

Duty of landowner to undiscovered trespasser?

Refrain from intentional or reckless injury (i.e., no death traps). Very limited exception may exist where the landowner knows, first, that unknown trespassers frequent a very specific area; second, there is a dangerous condition that the landowner reasonably should know involves a serious risk of death or grievous bodily harm to these trespassers; third, the owner has created or maintains the condition; and fourth, the owner should reasonably know that the trespassers will not likely discover the condition. In this very narrow situation, the duty is only to warn of the existence of the condition and the nature of the risk.

Michael broke his George Foreman Grill, so Andy graciously loans Michael his. What level of care is Michael liable for as it pertains to Andy's grill?

Slight negligence. If the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailee, the bailee is liable even for slight negligence. Slight > "s" > Michael grilled STEAKS on the SAME George Foreman that he burned his foot on.

For a res ipso loquitur claim, how can a P establish evidence connecting defendant with the negligence in order to support a finding of liability?

This requirement often can be satisfied by showing that the instrumentality that caused the injury was in the exclusive control of defendant, although actual possession of the instrumentality is not necessary.

True/False. A defendant who nonnegligently placed another in peril owes an affirmative duty to act to assist the person.

True. Doesn't matter is D placed another in peril negligently or nonnegligently. The duty arises because the D was the cause of the other's perilous position.

True/False. If a condition on a landowner's property creates a danger to those off the premises, he owes a duty to passersby to take due precautions.

True. Ex. Landowner should erect a barricade to keep people from falling into an excavation at the edge of his property.

True/False A landowner owes the same duty to anticipated trespassers as he does to discovered trespassers.

True. WARN or make safe ARTIFICIAL conditions KNOWN to the landowner that are HIGHLY DANGEROUS and NONOBVIOUS. There is no duty owed for natural conditions and less dangerous artificial conditions. The owner or occupier also has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the exercise of "active operations" on the property

True/False Negligence per se applies only to violations of statutes that have criminal penalties (including fines).

True. Where the statute in question provides for a civil remedy, plaintiff will sue directly under the statute; i.e., it is not a common law negligence case.

What question do you ask to determine whether proximate cause exists?

Was it foreseeable that D's conduct would cause injury to the P?

When does a doctor breach her duty to disclose the risks of treatment?

When an undisclosed risk was serious enough that a reasonable person in the patient's position would have withheld consent on learning of the risk.

When is a rescuer a foreseeable plaintiff?

Where D negligently put himself or a third person in peril. Danger invites rescue. Note: First responders may be barred from recovering for injuries caused by the risks of a rescue.

Dunder Mifflin hosted Casino Night in the warehouse, and as part of the entertainment, Michael ordered fire-eaters. A guest at the event was slightly burned by one of the fire-eaters and sued Dunder Mifflin for negligence. If it is an established custom that paper companies, including Staples and Office Depot, have fire-eaters in their paper warehouses during company events, is the guest likely to establish that Dunder Mifflin was negligent?

Yes. Custom or usage may be used to establish the SoC but does not control the question of whether certain conduct amounted to negligence. For example, although certain behavior is custom in an industry, a court may find that the entire industry is acting negligently.

Dwight loaned his tractor to the asparagus farmer down the road when the farmer's tractor suddenly stopped working. Dwight charged the farmer a fee for using his tractor for the week. Unbeknownst to Dwight, his tractor was in need of a serious repair to the engine. Dwight has neglected to repair the engine even though he saw the "check engine light" come on many months ago. The next day, while riding the tractor, the engine exploded, injuring the asparagus farmer. If the asparagus farmer sues Dwight for negligence, is he likely to prevail?

Yes. If the bailment is for hire, the bailor owes a duty to inform the bailee of defects known to him, or of which he would have known by the exercise of reasonable diligence.

In a partial comparative negligence jurisdiction, if a plaintiff is 40% negligent, one defendant is 35% negligent, and another defendant is 25% negligent, what can the plaintiff recover in most jurisdictions? A: 40% of her damages from either the first or second or defendant B: 60% of her damages from either the first or second defendant C: Up to 35% of her damages from the first defendant, and up to 25% of her damages from the second defendant D: Nothing, because her negligence was greater than the negligence of either defendant

B: 60% of her damages from either the first or second defendant D1 and D2 are joint and severally liable for P's damages. In a partial comparative negligence jurisdiction, P's own negligence contributes to her injury. The effect of that is P's damage award is reduced if her fault is below the threshold level (50%); otherwise, P's claim is barred.

For the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply, the plaintiff must establish that ______. A: The defendant violated a statute establishing a standard of care B: The accident would not normally occur unless someone was negligent C: The defendant possessed the instrumentality that caused the injury

B: The accident would not normally occur unless someone was negligent Res ipsa loquitur requires the plaintiff to show the following: 1) the accident causing his injury is the type that would not normally occur unless someone was negligent; 2) this type of accident ordinarily happens because of the negligence of someone in defendant's position; and 3) the injury was not attributable to P, (P may do so by his own testimony).

The eggshell-skull plaintiff rule means: A: The tortfeasor is liable to the plaintiff only for foreseeable damages B: The tortfeasor takes her victim as she finds him C: The plaintiff's damages will be reduced if he could have taken precautions to protect himself D: The tortfeasor is not liable to the plaintiff for injuries that are a result of plaintiff's particular sensitivity or defect

B: The tortfeasor takes her victim as she finds him In both direct cause and indirect cause cases, the fact that the extent or severity of the harm was not foreseeable does not relieve defendant of liability; i.e., the tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him. Thus, where defendant's negligence causes an aggravation of plaintiff's existing physical or mental illness, defendant is liable for the damages caused by the aggravation.

A landowner's duty to a person off the premises: A. Depends on the legal status of the person B. Applies to natural conditions to the same extent as artificial conditions C. Applies to unreasonably dangerous artificial conditions on the land

C. Applies to unreasonably dangerous artificial conditions on the land See screenshot

If the plaintiff establishes res ipsa loquitur, it will have the following effect: A: The burden of proof is shifted to the defendant B: A presumption of negligence is created C: A directed verdict will not be given for the defendant D: A directed verdict will be given for the plaintiff

C: A directed verdict will not be given for the defendant Where applicable, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not change the burden of proof, nor does it create a presumption of negligence. Where the res ipsa element has been proved, the plaintiff has made a prima facie case and no directed verdict may be given for the defendant.

Under the traditional rule, to whom does a landowner owe a duty to make reasonable inspections? A: A discovered trespasser B: An undiscovered trespasser C: An invitee D: A licensee

C: An invitee The landowner or occupier owes the same duties owed to licensees plus a duty to make reasonable inspections to discover nonobvious dangerous conditions and, thereafter, make them safe (a warning may suffice). ~if you (landowner) invite someone onto your property (for business purpose or purpose for which the land is held open to the public), then you have a heightened duty to inspect.

One who enters onto the premises in response to a express or implied invitation of the landowner is a _______. A: Licensee B: Trespasser C: Invitee D. Guest

C: Invitee

If a statute providing for a criminal penalty is applicable to a common law negligence case, a clearly stated specific duty imposed by the statute will replace the more general common law duty of care. Most courts hold that violation of an applicable statute _____. A: Raises a rebuttable presumption as to duty and breach B: Is only prima facie evidence of negligence C: Is negligence per se D: Raises a rebuttable presumption as to breach

C: Is negligence per se Majority: violation of a statute is "negligence per se" = P has established a conclusive presumption of duty and breach of duty, but P still must establish causation and damages to complete the prima facie case for negligence. Minority: hold either that (i) a rebuttable presumption as to duty and breach thereof arises, or (ii) the statutory violation is only prima facie evidence of negligence.

Describe the majority and minority approaches to foreseeable plaintiffs.

Cardozo view (majority) = foreseeable zone of danger. Ask: Was P located in the foreseeable zone of danger? Andrews view (minority) = everyone is foreseeable. If D breached the duty of care owed to P1 but also harmed P2, then D's duty extends to P2.

A child is required to conform to a higher standard of care than that of a child of like age, education, intelligence, and experience when the child: A: Engages in an activity that is dangerous. B: Has an affirmative duty to act. C: Is trespassing at the location of an attractive nuisance. D: Engages in an activity that is normally one that only adults engage in.

D: Engages in an activity that is normally one that only adults engage in. Motorized activity: flying a plane, driving a car, driving a speedboat, etc.

Which of the following is correct regarding negligence damages? A: Punitive damages are not available in negligence B: Proof of damages is not required in negligence C: Damages may be presumed in negligence cases D: Nominal damages are not available in negligence

D: Nominal damages are not available in negligence Damage is an essential element of negligence; thus, damage will not be presumed (and nominal damages are not available). Nominal damages refers to a damage award issued by a court when a legal wrong has occurred, but where there was no actual financial loss as a result of that legal wrong. Nominal > like symbolic.

Dwight invited Darryl, Andy, and Angela to go hunting on his land. What is Dwight's duty of care to ensure his friends are not injured by dangerous conditions on his land?

Dwight invited his friends on to the property to go hunting, so they have permission to be on the property for social, nonbusiness reasons. Thus, the Dwight's friends would be considered licensees. Dwight must either warn his friends about, or make safe, foreseeably dangerous conditions on his land that he knows or reasonably should know about, and that his friends are not likely to discover themselves.

True/False Punitive damages are not available in negligence.

False. Punitive damages generally are not available in negligence cases. However, a P may recover punitive damages if D's conduct is "wanton and willful," reckless, or malicious. Punitive = punishment damages (punish the D for outrageous conduct)

True/False. In cases of a failure to diagnose a congenial defect or properly perform a contraceptive procedure, the child may recover for "wrongful life."

False. The child may not recover for "wrongful life." But, the parents may recover damages in a "wrongful birth" or "wrongful pregnancy" action for any additional medical expenses and for pain and suffering from labor. Ordinary child rearing expenses cannot be recovered.

True/False. If a P suffers only economic loss as a result of another's negligence, she cannot recover damages in a tort action.

False. There is an exception to the general rule that one who suffers only economic loss as a result of another's negligence cannot recover damages in a tort action: Intended beneficiaries of economic transactions. A third party for whose economic benefit a legal or business transaction is made (e.g., the beneficiary of a will) is owed a duty of care if the defendant could reasonably foresee harm to that party if the transaction is done negligently.

Does a landowner owe a duty to a hiker who has permission to be on the landowner's land?

Generally, no. If an owner or occupier of open land permits the public to use the land for recreational purposes without charging a fee, the landowner is not liable for injuries suffered by a recreational user unless the landowner willfully and maliciously failed to guard against or warn of a dangerous condition or activity.

Michael makes Dwight drop off his dry cleaning. He doesn't pay Dwight to do this; it's punishment for that time Dwight tried to steal his job as manager. What is Dwight's liability in regards to Michael's dry cleaning?

Gross negligence. If the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailor, the bailee is liable only for gross negligence. Gross - handling Michaels dirty clothes

What duty does a landowner owe to a discovered trespasser?

He owes the trespasser no duty for natural conditions that involve a risk of death or serious bodily harm. Discovered trespasser... No duty owed for: 1) natural conditions (even if they involve a risk of death or serious bodily harm) 2) less dangerous artificial conditions Duty owed for: 1) Artificial conditions likely to cause death or SBH > Duty = duty to warn of or make safe nonobvious and highly dangerous conditions 2) Active operations > Duty = duty of reasonable care

For whom does a landowner have a duty to make reasonable inspections to discover nonobvious, dangerous conditions?

Invitees (includes member of public, business visitor)

Michael Scott is negligently driving his car to work. As he pulls into the parking lot, he takes his eyes off the road while talking to the camera guy in his car. At that moment, he hits Meredith with his car. Meredith suffers a slight hip fracture and a cut to her thigh. Meredith also goes into Hypovolemic shock (which happens when a sudden and significant loss of blood or body fluids drops your blood volume) because she had a lot to drink the night before (and alcohol thins the blood). The hip fracture and thigh cut were foreseeable; the Hypovolemic shock was not. For which harm is Michael liable for?

Michael is liable for all of Meredith's damages. Eggshell-skull plaintiff rule

Dwight gratuitously loaned his tractor to the asparagus farmer down the road when the farmer's tractor suddenly stopped working. Unbeknownst to Dwight, his tractor was in need of a serious repair to the engine. The next day, while riding the tractor, the engine exploded, injuring the asparagus farmer. If the asparagus farmer sues Dwight for negligence, is he likely to prevail?

No. Dwight was not aware of the defect in the engine. If the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailee, the bailor need only inform the bailee of known dangerous defects in the chattel. There is no duty with regard to unknown defects.

Michael found Meredith lying on the ground crying for help, after being hit by a car. In the craziness of the situation, Michael negligently injured Meredith further when he "threw" her into his car to drive her to the hospital. If Meredith sues Michael for her injuries sustained when she was thrown into the car, is the existence of the emergency situation to be considered when determining whether Michael acted negligently? Keep in mind that Michael was able to so quickly be on the scene of the accident because he's the one who hit her with his car.

No. The existence of an emergency, presenting little time for reflection, may be considered as among the circumstances under which the defendant acted; i.e., he must act as the reasonable person would under the same emergency. The emergency may not be considered, however, if it is of the defendant's own making.

In most states, the SoC owed by an automobile driver to a rider is...

Ordinary care regardless of whether the rider has contributed toward the expense of the ride. A few states have guest statutes. Under these statutes, the driver's only duty to a nonpaying rider is to refrain from gross or wanton and willful misconduct. Note that guest statutes do not apply to "passengers," i.e., riders who contribute toward the expense of the ride; they are owed a duty of ordinary care.

A duty of care is owed to all ________ ________.

Foreseeable plaintiffs.

Do landowners owe any duty to undiscovered trespassers?

Landowners owe no duty to undiscovered trespassers. But, easement and license holders owe a duty of reasonable care to trespassers.

Common carriers and innkeepers are liable for _________ negligence. For the higher common carrier and innkeeper standards to apply, the plaintiff must be a ________ or ________.

Slight (negligence) passenger or guest

What rebuts a claim of breach of duty?

The D's exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances (+ applicable SoC).

For a sole benefit of the bailee bailment, the bailor must inform the bailee of _____, ______ defects in the chattel.

known, dangerous

Which of the following is correct regarding proximate cause in negligence? A: A defendant is not liable for the harmful results of his conduct that are unforeseeable B: Proximate cause is not required for a defendant to be liable, but actual cause is required C: A defendant is liable for all harmful results caused by his acts

A: A defendant is not liable for the harmful results of his conduct that are unforeseeable A D generally is liable for all harmful results that ARE NORMAL INCIDENTS OF AND W/I THE INCREASED RISK CAUSED BY HIS ACTS (foreseeable). The doctrine of proximate cause deals with liability or non-liability for unforeseeable or unusual consequences of one's acts.

One who enters on land with the landowner's permission for her own purpose or business rather than the landowner's benefit is a ________. A: Licensee B: Trespasser C: Invitee D: Permissive

A: Licensee

A driver was driving his car negligently along a mountain road. He lost control of his car and careened over the side of a cliff. A jogger saw the driver's car go off the cliff and stopped to see if he could help. The jogger started to climb down the cliff to render aid to the driver. In doing so, the jogger slipped and broke his leg. The jogger sued the driver to recover damages for his broken leg. Regarding any defenses the driver might raise, which of the following statements is correct? (A) A rescuer acts at his own peril. (B) The excitement of the accident and the speedy response of the rescuer would be considered in a case such as this. (C) Assumption of the risk cannot be invoked against rescuers. (D) The driver would not have a valid defense.

(B) The excitement of the accident and the speedy response of the rescuer would be considered in a case such as this. All of the circumstances will be considered when evaluating the conduct of the rescuer, including the excitement of the accident and the speedy response of the rescuer. A rescuer is a foreseeable plaintiff as long as the rescue is not reckless; hence, the defendant is liable if he negligently puts himself in peril and the plaintiff is injured attempting a rescue. A plaintiff may take extraordinary risks when attempting a rescue without being considered contributorily negligent. The emergency situation is one of the factors taken into account when evaluating the plaintiff's conduct. (D) is incorrect; the driver would have a defense if he could demonstrate that the rescuer's actions were reckless. (A) is incorrect because, while the court can conclude that the rescuer recklessly put himself in danger, this is not an absolute defense. (C) is an incorrect statement of law; assumption of risk may be applicable, depending on the circumstances, such as if the rescue were reckless.

A housecleaning agency was given a key to a customer's house so that the agency could have its employees clean while the homeowner was away. After a maid sent by the agency had nished and left the homeowner's house, she went back because she had forgotten her cigarettes. She neglected to lock the door when she left the second time because she was already late for the next job. When the homeowner returned after a few days away, she discovered that her house had been ransacked and several items of jewelry stolen. The front door was open, and there were no signs of forced entry. If the homeowner brings an action against the agency that employed the maid, what is the likely result? (A) She will not prevail, because she is limited to claims for breach of contract based on her agreement with the agency. (B) She will not prevail, because the act of the burglar was an independent superseding cause of the homeowner's loss. (C) She will prevail, because the maid's failure to lock the door created the risk that someone might enter and take the homeowner's valuables. (D) She will prevail, because when the maid returned after having completed her work, she was technically a trespasser, making the agency vicariously liable for any damage she caused to the premises.

(C) She will prevail, because the maid's failure to lock the door created the risk that someone might enter and take the homeowner's valuables. The homeowner will prevail because the maid's negligence increased the risk of criminal conduct by a third party. Criminal acts and intentional torts of third persons are foreseeable independent intervening forces if the defendant's negligence created a foreseeable risk that they would occur. Here, the maid's failure to lock the door was negligent because it created a risk of burglary; hence, the burglary does not cut off the agency's liability for the maid's negligence. As the maid's employer, the agency is vicariously liable under respondeat superior. (A) is wrong because there is nothing in the facts to indicate that the homeowner waived her right to bring tort claims against the agency; having a contractual relationship with a party does not automatically preclude bringing a tort action against the party. (B) is wrong because the burglary was not a superseding cause of the loss; it was within the increased risk caused by the maid's negligence. (D) is wrong because she reentered to retrieve a personal item that she had brought with her when she went to the job; her return just to get the item was within the scope of her employment and would not make her a trespasser.

A man was using his newly purchased riding mower to cut the grass in front of his residence when a group of intoxicated college students came rollerblading down the sidewalk. Just as the group passed the man, one of them trying to show off attempted a spin and jump, but instead tumbled onto the lawn directly in the path of the mower. The man attempted to swerve violently to the left to avoid him, but the mower toppled forward, dumping the man and itself over and giving the man a concussion. Unbeknownst to the man, the mower had a design defect that caused it to topple over if the steering wheel were turned too sharply while the machine was in motion. The man brought an appropriate action against the rollerblader for damages in state court. Will the man recover for his injuries? (A) No, because the manufacturer of the mower is strictly liable for supplying a dangerously defective product. (B) No, if the rollerblader can prove to the trier of fact that the man would not have been injured but for the existence of the design defect in the mower. (C) Yes, because the man was injured as a result of trying to avoid running over the rollerblader. (D) Yes, because the rollerblader was negligent in trying to do the difficult skating maneuver while intoxicated.

(D) Yes, because the rollerblader was negligent in trying to do the difficult skating maneuver while intoxicated. The man will recover because the rollerblader was negligent. The rollerblader's conduct created an unreasonable risk of harm to a foreseeable victim, and such harm proximately occurred. (A) is incorrect because the existence of a concurrent tortfeasor who is also liable for a plaintiff's injuries does not relieve another tortfeasor of liability. (B) is incorrect for a similar reason—the rollerblader's actions were a concurrent cause of the man's injuries, so he is liable even if the design defect was also a cause. (C) is wrong because it does not include the element of the roller- blader's negligence—if the rollerblader had been acting prudently or was operating under some privilege, the fact that the man was injured while trying to avoid hitting him would not create liability. Thus, (D) is the best answer.

When confronted with a negligence question, what two initial questions should you consider?

1) Was it foreseeable that D's conduct would create a risk of injury to a person in the position of the plaintiff? 2) If so, what is the applicable standard of care?

Name the four situations in which an affirmative duty to act is owed.

1. Assumption of duty by action (exception for Good Samaritan statutes) 2. Peril due to D's conduct 3. Special relationship between parties 4. Duty to prevent harm from third persons

What is the D's standard of care under an emergency situation?

A defendant must act as a reasonable person would under the same emergency conditions. But, the emergency is not to be considered if it is of D's own making.

In a tort action, the jury determines that the plaintiff suffered $100,000 in damages and was 40% at fault, and the defendant suffered $100,000 in damages and was 60% at fault. In a partial comparative negligence jurisdiction, the plaintiff will have a right to recover __________ and the defendant will have a right to recover __________. A: $60,000; $0 B: $60,000; $40,000 C: $20,000; $0 D: $40,000; $60,000

A: $60,000; $0 P will recover $60,000 from D ($100K - $40K (bc 40% at fault). D will recover nothing from P b/c D was more than 50% at fault.

Mr. Milhouse is a high school science teacher. He was diagnosed with narcolepsy at a young age. Because he cannot drive safely, he normally catches a ride home with a colleague. But, today, his colleague had to leave early. Left with no other option, Mr. Milhouse decided to drive the driver's ed car that was available to teachers on an as-needed basis. On his way home, Mr. Milhouse suddenly fell asleep and swerved onto the sidewalk, hitting Nikki, a student who was walking home from school. Luckily, Nikki suffered only minor injuries because she was wearing her back pack on the front, and her laptop took most of the impact from the sideview mirror of the car. If Nikki's mom, Sherry, sues Mr. Milhouse for damages resulting from the accident, is she likely to prevail?

Yes. Mr. Milhouse owes to Nikki the duty of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. Notwithstanding application of the objective standard, the "reasonable person" is considered to have the same physical characteristics as the defendant. However, a person is expected to know his physical handicaps and is under a duty to exercise the care of a person with such knowledge. Therefore, because Mr. Milhouse knew of his physical handicap (narcolepsy), he acted negligently in deciding to drive the car.

For a bailment for hire, the bailor must inform the bailee of _________.

chattel defects of which he is or should be aware