DUTY:

The first element of negligence is duty, also referred to as duty of care. What is a duty? In its most simplistic terms, it is an obligation to either do or not do something that will harm someone else. Think of duty as an obligation. We all have a duty or an obligation to act reasonably or reasonably refrain from certain actions, in such a way as to not cause injury or harm to another person. For example, as drivers of automobiles on public roads, we all have a duty to follow the rules of the road. It is our obligation as a licensed driver to do so. We understand that rules like speed limits are imposed to protect others. A reasonable person understands that the failure to follow the rules of the road may result in harm to another person.

Scope of one’s duty:

The relationship between parties creates the existence or nonexistence of your duty to them. Depending on what our relationship is to others changes our obligations. For example, a manufacturer’s duty of care is to make sure that products they sell are reasonably safe and to provide warnings of any potential dangers that the use of the product may cause. Therefore, the scope of a manufacturer’s duty of care is to a consumer who uses the product as intended and properly. The manufacturer may have no duty of care to a consumer qho uses the product for a different purpose than intended or if the product is used improperly. Here is another example. A property owner has a duty of care to make sure that her/his property is reasonable safe to those that may enter onto the property. That level of duty of care may be different depending on the relationship of the property owner to those entering the property. The duty of care owed a visitor may be different than one owed a trespasser.

The reasonable person standard:

A duty of care is based on what a reasonable person, in the same or similar circumstance, would do. A reasonable person is a legal fiction. It is an objective test on not what a person honestly thought was the right thing to do, but what that person should have done based on what a reasonable person would have done in the same or similar circumstance. Note that while the standard of reasonableness does not change, the “same or similar circumstance” usually does change. The trier of fact, in other words a jury (or judge in a bench trial) decides what a reasonable person would have done based on the circumstances presented to them. Who the members of a jury are matters. That is the point of voir dire as previously discussed in Chapter 5. Voir dire is also part of the civil jury selection process. What is considered reasonable to a jury in NYC may not be so to a jury in Batavia, N.Y., and yet both juries can be right.

Good Samaritan Laws:

Unless a person has a particular relationship with another person, such as a doctor/patient relationship, a person is not legally responsible to help someone who is in need. A person cannot be sued or arrested for failing to do so. The law does not force people to make moral decisions to help others. There can me many reasons why a person may not volunteer to help someone who is in need. One of them may be the fear that they will be sued by the person in need if they make things worse. To elevate that concern and thereby encourage people to help others in need, we have what are called “Good Samaritan” laws. These laws provide immunity to those who choose to help others who are injured in the event they unintentionally make matters worse.