People with Physical Disabilities
The default negligence standard is the reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.
3. Negligence: Duty of Care - People with Physical Disabilities
The conduct of an actor with a physical disability is negligent only if the conduct does not conform to that of a reasonably prudent person with the same disability. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: PHYS. & EMOT. HARM § 11 (a) (2010).
- Defendants with a physical disability are held to the standard of a reasonably prudent person with that disability (e.g., “reasonably prudent blind person”).
An actor with a physical disability is judged against a reasonably prudent person with the same disability. The disability swaps in the right comparison group; it does not raise the bar, lower it, or excuse the actor.
The default negligence standard is the reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. This concept is the one place where the standard bends to fit the defendant: a person with a physical disability is not judged against an able-bodied person, and is not given a pass either. The yardstick is a reasonably prudent person who has the same physical disability. So a blind defendant is measured against a reasonably prudent blind person, a deaf defendant against a reasonably prudent deaf person, and so on.
The disability becomes one of the circumstances the jury folds into the reasonableness inquiry. It does not raise the bar, it does not lower the bar, and it does not turn the test into whatever this particular person could personally manage. It swaps in the right comparison group and then asks the ordinary reasonable-care question.
Only physical disabilities shift the comparison. And the test stays objective, not whatever this particular person could personally manage.
"Same disability, same shoes."
Put the reasonably prudent person in the defendant's shoes, physical condition and all, then ask what care that person would use.
it is not a personal best-efforts test (objective, not "did his honest best")
it is not a heightened or excused standard (the disability neither punishes nor excuses)
Cue card: physical disability in, same comparison out, reasonable care still required.
A delivery worker who is deaf rides a bicycle on a shared path. He cannot hear an approaching runner call out, and the two collide.
Plug in the standard: not a reasonably prudent person who can hear, and not simply whatever this rider could personally do. The comparison is a reasonably prudent person who is also deaf. The jury then asks whether that person, knowing he could not rely on hearing, would have used some other reasonable precaution, such as watching the path more carefully or using a mirror. If the deaf rider used the care a reasonably prudent deaf rider would use, he did not breach, even though a hearing rider might have heard the warning and stopped.
The disability changes the comparison group, not the demand for reasonable care.
An option holds the disabled defendant to a reasonably prudent person WITHOUT the disability, or says the condition is disregarded.
Physical disabilities ARE taken into account; the comparison is a reasonably prudent person with the same disability. Only mental or emotional disabilities get no allowance.An option uses an absolute: the actor can NEVER be liable, or is ALWAYS held to a heightened standard because the condition endangers others.
The disability neither immunizes nor heightens; it sets the comparison group, and ordinary reasonable care measured against that group still applies.An option lowers the test to whatever care the defendant could personally give, or to his honest best effort.
The standard is objective: a reasonably prudent person with the same disability, not the individual's own capacity.An option reaches the right yes/no but justifies it with 'he did his personal best' rather than the same-disability comparison.
Name the operative rule: conduct conforms to a reasonably prudent person WITH the same disability, an objective benchmark, not a subjective best effort.the stem hands you a defendant who has a physical condition (blind, deaf, uses a wheelchair, sudden physical incapacity) and then asks by what standard the conduct is judged, or whether the defendant breached.
The moment you see a named physical disability driving the conduct, swap the comparison group to a reasonably prudent person with that same disability and run the ordinary reasonable-care analysis.
Watch for the trap pairing of physical versus mental disability: only the physical one shifts the comparison.
A messenger who is deaf rode a bicycle along a shared path where he could not hear a jogger call out from behind. The two collided and the jogger was hurt. At trial, the messenger showed that he had used the same care a reasonably prudent deaf rider would use on that path.
Is the messenger liable for negligence?
A shopper who uses a wheelchair because of a physical disability struck and injured another customer while moving through a crowded store. The injured customer sued the shopper for negligence.
By what standard is the shopper's conduct evaluated?
A homeowner who is blind cleared snow from his front walk. Working by touch in the way a reasonably prudent blind person would, he left a small patch of ice that a sighted person clearing the walk likely would have seen and removed. A visitor slipped on the patch and was injured, then sued the homeowner for negligence.
Did the homeowner breach his duty of care?
A driver had a sudden, unforeseeable physical seizure while driving and lost control of the car, injuring a bystander. The driver had no warning that the seizure was coming. The bystander sued the driver for negligence.
How does the driver's physical condition affect the standard of care applied to his driving?