People with Mental or Emotional Disabilities
Negligence runs on an objective standard: the reasonably prudent person.
4. Negligence: Duty of Care – People with Mental or Emotional Disabilities
An actor's mental or emotional disability is not considered in determining whether conduct is negligent. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: PHYS. & EMOT. HARM § 11 (c) (2010); DAN B. DOBBS, ET AL., THE LAW OF TORTS §§ 129-30 (2d ed.).
- Defendants with mental or emotional disabilities are generally held to the standard of a reasonably prudent person without special allowance for the mental or emotional disability.
- (Citations are included for reference only; test-takers will not need to recall them.)
An actor's mental or emotional disability is not considered in deciding whether conduct is negligent. The defendant is still measured against the ordinary reasonably prudent person, with no allowance.
Negligence runs on an objective standard: the reasonably prudent person. Concept 3 carves out one adjustment to that standard for an actor with a physical disability, because a physical limitation is observable and the law asks what a reasonable person with that same physical limitation would have done.
Concept 4 closes the door on the parallel argument for mental or emotional disability. The actor's mental or emotional condition is simply not part of the analysis. So a defendant who was mentally ill, cognitively limited, panicked, enraged, or emotionally overwhelmed is still measured against the ordinary reasonably prudent person, with no discount and no special version of that person. The line is physical IN, mental and emotional OUT.
Do not import the same-disability allowance here. There is no reasonably prudent person with the same mental or emotional disability; that allowance is physical-only.
physical gets a partner, mental stands alone.
A blind defendant is judged against a reasonable blind person; a mentally ill defendant is judged against an ordinary reasonable person, period.
'No allowance for the mind.' If the disability is in the body, build it into the standard; if it is in the mind or the emotions, ignore it and apply the plain reasonable-person standard.
A delivery worker with a significant cognitive limitation parks his van on a hill and forgets to set the brake; the van rolls and damages a parked car. He argues he should be judged by what a person with his limited understanding could manage.
The worker is instead deaf and could not hear a warning shout.
An option measures a mentally or emotionally disabled actor against 'a reasonably prudent person with the same mental/emotional disability.'
The same-disability allowance applies only to PHYSICAL disabilities (concept 3). Mental and emotional disabilities are not considered; the ordinary standard applies.An option excuses the actor because the mental episode was sudden, first-time, or unforeseeable.
How or when the condition arose is irrelevant. The mental disability is disregarded; no allowance is made regardless of onset.An option asks whether the actor did the best a person of his mental ability or capacity could do, or judges him by his own capacity.
The standard is the OBJECTIVE reasonably prudent person, not a subjective best-efforts or capacity measure.An option flattens both disability rules into one absolute, such as 'every actor is held to the same standard regardless of any disability.'
The rule has a boundary: a physical disability IS taken into account; only a mental or emotional disability is ignored.the stem hands you a defendant who acted while mentally ill, cognitively limited, panicked, enraged, confused, or emotionally overwhelmed, and the defendant (or the call) asks the court to take that condition into account or to apply a softened or personalized standard.
The instant you see a mental or emotional condition offered as a reason to lower the bar, the answer is no allowance, ordinary reasonably prudent person.
Watch for a paired physical disability in the same fact pattern as the contrast that makes the boundary the tested point.
A homeowner with a diagnosed emotional disability became severely agitated while burning yard debris in her backyard. Distracted by her distress, she left the fire unattended, and it spread to a neighbor's fence and damaged it. The neighbor sued the homeowner for negligence. The homeowner asked the court to judge her conduct in light of her emotional condition.
How should the court determine the standard of care that applies to the homeowner?
While operating a riding lawnmower, a worker experienced a sudden onset of a mental condition for the first time and steered the mower into a bystander, injuring him. The bystander sued the worker for negligence. The worker argued that the abrupt and unexpected nature of the episode should relieve him of liability.
Should the sudden onset of the worker's mental condition lower the standard of care applied to him?
Two defendants were sued for negligence after separate accidents. One defendant is deaf and did not hear an approaching cyclist before stepping into a bike lane. The other defendant has a mental disability and wandered into traffic while confused. Each asks the court to measure his conduct against a person who shares his particular condition.
Whose request reflects the correct standard of care?
A shop assistant with a significant cognitive limitation stacked heavy boxes on a high shelf without securing them, and a box fell and injured a customer. The customer sued for negligence. The assistant maintained that, given his limited mental ability, he did the best that someone with his understanding could do.
Is the assistant's limited mental ability a defense to the negligence claim?