Stewart v. Motts
539 Pa. 596, 654 A.2d 535 (1995)
Facts: Plaintiff, Stewart, stopped at defendant's auto shop and offered to help the defendant, Motts, repair an automobile fuel tank. The plaintiff suggested a course of action; the defendant agreed. The exact sequence of events is contested, but the car backfired and burned the plaintiff. The plaintiff argues on appeal that the judge should have instructed the jury that the circumstances required a "high degree of care."
Procedure: Trial court found for the defendant; plaintiff appeals.
Issue: Should the defendant have used a "high degree of care" in handling gasoline?
Holding: No.
Reasoning: The standard of "reasonable care" never varies; only what is reasonable under the circumstances. Reasonable care is always proportionate to the danger of the act.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think its the plaintiffs fault. He offered to help and it was his idea. He should blame the defendant for it. I really enjoy reading your articles, especially the Hamer v. Sidway post.
Thanks for the great articles.
Post a Comment