This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
Although “reasonable care” may sound like a simple, straightforward standard, its simplicity is also its problem: there may be situations in which we wish there were more guidance to settle upon a judgment of negligence, even with the facts clearly presented. Suppose a six-year-old playing a game of tag in the local park knocks over a responsibly-behaving passerby. Does reasonable care naturally scale to meet a six-year-old's capacities? Should it?
How to judge a six-year-old opens the door to a broader question that as the ring of applied philosophy to it: to what extent should society forgive, and reflect in its standards, the infirmities and limitations of a defendant? How much should expectations be raised for those with extra abilities?EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST
Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (0/2 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (2/2 playlist item notes are private)
|1.1||Show/Hide More||Vaughan v. Menlove--"The Unreasonable Hay Stacker"|
|1.4||Show/Hide More||VII. Ellis v. D'Angelo -- "The 4-Year-Old Bone Breaker"|
|2||Show/Hide More||VII.B. The Effect of Defendant's Infirmities and Limitations on the Standard|
|2.1||Show/Hide More||McCarty v. Pheasant Run--"The Chained, But Unlocked, Sliding Door"|
|2.2||Show/Hide More||Roberts v. Ramsbottom--"The Driver Who Had a Stroke"|
October 17, 2013
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at email@example.com. Thank you.