VAUGHAN V MENLOVE Facts: D built a hay rick near P's property.

. P warned D that the hay rick was too close to the cottage and that it was likely to catch fire. D responded that he would chance it. The hay rick did indeed catch fire and burnt down P's cottage. P sued D for damages in negligence for maintaining the rick in a dangerous condition. The jury was instructed to use the reasonable man standard. D argued that the court should have instructed based upon good faith and best judgment. Procedural History: Trial court found for P. English Court affirmed, found for P. Issues: What is the standard of care used to determine if negligence is present? Holding/Rule: The standard of care used in negligence cases is that of a reasonable person in similar circumstances. Reasoning: The standard has always been the reasonable man standard, not a subjective one as requested by D. While somewhat vague, juries have always been able to decipher what it means. DELAIR V MCADOO Facts: D was passing P on a road when his tire blew out and caused him to hit P. P sued D to recover damages as a result of the accident. P claimed that D's tires were worn out and that D was negligent in not replacing them. Procedural History: Trial court found for P, denied judgment n.o.v. PA Supreme Court affirmed, found for P. Issues: Would a reasonable driver be expected to know that driving with worn out tires is a risk to others on the road? Holding/Rule: A reasonable driver is expected to know that driving with worn out tires is a risk to others on the road. Reasoning: The evidence in the case makes it clear that the tires were completely worn out. An ordinary individual knows that using a tire beyond this point is dangerous. All drivers must be held to knowledge of these facts. A driver cannot escape liability simply because he says he does not know of the danger; drivers must understand their cars and the conditions of various parts that might be dangerous.

Subjective state of mind is irrelevant; reasonable person standard is applicable.

TRIMARCO V. KLEIN Facts: P was a tenant and D was his landlord. P was getting out of the tub when the glass shower door broke and injured him. P did not know and was not made aware that the door used was made out of ordinary glass and not tempered glass. P sued D for damages. P showed at trial that there was evidence of custom and usage to show that ordinary glass doors no longer conformed to accepted safety standards and that they were considered hazardous in showers. Procedural History: Trial court found for P. Appellate Division reversed, found for D. COA NY reversed, new trial ordered, found for P. Issues: Can a P offer evidence of custom, common usage and practice in making his case for negligence? Holding/Rule: A P may offer evidence of custom, common usage and practice in making his case for negligence, but such evidence is not binding since the reasonable person standard is the standard used. Reasoning: Evidence of custom and usage may be used to show that person may have fallen below the reasonable standard of care. This is a jury issue; the jury must weigh the usage evidence and the reasonable person standard and decide if the D is negligent. The trial court had enough evidence to send it to the jury and instructed the jury correctly that it could consider custom in making its decision. Evidence of usage and custom is pretty potent stuff. CORDAS V. PEERLESS TRANSPORTATION CO Facts: Some hoodlum robbed someone and ran away. He jumped in the back of D's cab, put a gun to his head, and told him to drive. D slammed on his brakes suddenly and jumped out of the car. D did not put the emergency brake on, so the cab continued to roll. It hopped the sidewalk and hit P and her two children. Their injuries were minor. P sued D in negligence. Procedural History: Trial court dismissed the complaint. NYC City Court reversed, reinstated P's complaint. Issues:

How should the standard of care be measured when an individual is placed in an emergency situation? Holding/Rule: The conduct of an individual in an emergency situation cannot be measured by the same standard of care as a reasonable person in a non-emergency situation. Reasoning: Negligence is measured according to the circumstances surrounding the event.. An action that may be negligent under normal circumstances may not be negligent under an emergency situation not of the D's making. D cannot be liable under the facts submitted. Dissent: None. Notes: It's different if the D created the dangerous situation. Also, this might have been different if there were more serious injuries.