Standard of Care
If a defendant complies with a statute, does that preclude her from negligence liability?
NO.
How does a court apply a statute as a standard of care?
A court must determine the statute is relevant to the circumstance in which it is being used.
Reasonably Prudent Person Under Same or Similar Circumstances
An objective standard of care which is consistent with the expected attributes of the community, determined by the jury.
Children's Standard of Care
Children are not held to the RPPUSSC standard of care; but will be held to a reasonable child of like age, intelligence, maturity, and experience.
What factors can be used in determining a person's adherence to the RPPUSSC?
Courts allow the jury to consider emergencies not created by the defendant and a defendant's physical characteristics.
Exceptions regarding circumstances when children are held to RPPUSSC standard of care.
If a child is participating in either an Inherently Dangerous Activity or an adult activity, said child will be held to RPPUSSC standard of care.
What is the role of statutes regarding the establishment of standards of care?
In a majority of jurisdictions a statute establishes the RPPUSSC, and the violation of said statute is "Negligence Per Se," establishing defendant's breach of duty. In a minority of jurisdictions a statute may be used as evidence to support defendant's failure to adhere the expected standard of care.
How is the standard of care measured?
The standard of care is measured one of two ways: 1. Under a Reasonably Prudent Person Under Same or Similar Circumstances (RPPUSSC) standard of care; or 2. Under a Child's standard of care.
What is the standard of care?
The standard of care is the conduct that is demanded of a person as to avoid liability for negligence. In other words, it is the measure of the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
How does a court determine if a statute is relevant to a particular claim?
When utilizing a statute as a standard of care, plaintiff must prove: 1. The type of harm suffered is the type of harm the legislature sought to protect against; AND 2. The plaintiff is a member of the protected class the legislature sought to protect.
Are there any statutes that do not recognize excuses of the violation as a defense?
Yes, Courts will not recognize an excuse as a defense in the violation of: 1. Child Labor Laws 2. Pure Food and Drug Laws 3. Hazardous materials safety rules.
It seems Negligence Per Se conflicts with the policy rationale of the Child's standard of care; do courts permit the violation of a statute in establishing a child's breach of standard?
Yes, but only as far as allowing a violation of statute as evidence, AND as long as the jury finds that a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence, maturity, and experience would not have acted in violation.
If the court is a Negligence per se jurisdiction; Are there any particular defenses to a violation of statute that would excuse the defendant of liability?
Yes, many courts will consider: 1. Incapacity 2. Lack of knowledge of occasion for compliance 3. Inability after reasonable diligence to comply 4. Emergency 5. Compliance would involve a greater risk 6. Reasonableness under all circumstances