[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-178108-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-178108-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","torts-winter-2019-professor-neyers","Torts - Winter 2019 - Professor Neyers","","Torts - Winter 2019 by Professor Neyers organizes negligence and duty doctrine around the standard of care and the scope of legal obligation. It compares the objective standard of reasonable care across capacity limits, unconsciousness, and age, and contrasts orthodox tests such as Bolton v Stone with balanced risk approaches. It also reviews the duty framework through landmark cases on neighbor duty, foreseeable risk, rescuers, police interventions, unborn children, and related Canadian authority.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/general/","General",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/torts-winter-2019-professor-neyers/178108/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/torts-winter-2019-professor-neyers/178108.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Lucas Martin","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document","2026-10-12","2026-09-02",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",10,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What does the objective standard of care mean in this outline?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Negligence is assessed by what a reasonable person would do, rather than the individual’s subjective mindset. Cases discussed show how courts apply this objective approach even when capacity is diminished, with adjustments tied to age or understanding.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How is the standard of care tested in discussions of Bolton v Stone and related cases?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The outline contrasts the orthodox Bolton v Stone approach—focused on whether a substantial real risk was created—with other frameworks that balance the burden of precautions against probability and likely harm. It also highlights limits for small or infinitesimal risks.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What duties are covered under the duty section beyond general neighbor duty?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The duty coverage includes duties to rescuers and police/intervention contexts, as well as duties relating to unborn children. The outline also addresses duty boundaries using cases that connect duty to foreseeability and the nature of the risk.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},178108,1790204378,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,114,119,124],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":110,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":115,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":120,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":122,"slug":123},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":125,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":126},158,"general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":128},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":129,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":22,"category_id":125,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":141,"read_time":100},8796095360427,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","Torts – Winter 2019 – Professor Neyers\n\u0003Contents\n\u0013 TOC \\o \"1-3\" \\h \\z \\u \u0014\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949463\" \u0014Negligence: The Standard of Care\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949463 \\h \u00144\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949464\" \u0014PART 1: THE STANDARD OF CARE\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949464 \\h \u00146\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949465\" \u0014Objective Standard\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949465 \\h \u00146\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949466\" \u0014Vaughan v. Menlove (1873), 132 ER 490 (CP) [Hay fire – standard is for a reasonable person]\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949466 \\h \u00146\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949467\" \u0014Buckley v. Smith Transport Ltd., [1946] OR 798 (CA) [Syphilis car crash; Insane means no breach of standard of care if unable to understand duty]\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949467 \\h \u00146\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949468\" \u0014Stokes v Carson (Not in text) - [not liable if unconscious, since no control over actions]\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949468 \\h \u00146\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949469\" \u0014Roberts v. Ramsbottom [1980] 1 All ER 7 (QBD) [Stroke, car accidents] Objective standard applies to cases of diminished capacity]\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949469 \\h \u00147\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949470\" \u0014Mansfield v. Weetabix [1998] 1 WLR 1263 (CA) [WRONG] Court equates moral liability with legal liability which is wrong; COUNTER-ARGUMENT for STANDARD OF CARE\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949470 \\h \u00147\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949471\" \u0014Dunnage v Randall (2016)\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949471 \\h \u00147\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949472\" \u0014Fiala v Cecmanek (2001)\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949472 \\h \u00148\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949473\" \u0014McHale v. Watson (1966), 115 CLR 199 (Aust. HC) [12 yr old blinded girl – objective standard dependent on age\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949473 \\h \u00148\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949474\" \u0014The Queen v. Hill [1986] 1 SCR 313 [affirms McHale decision is BLL in Canada]\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949474 \\h \u00149\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949475\" \u0014McErlean v. Sarel (1987) 61 OR 386; OCA (Canadian case) WRONG [Kids hurt ATVing – Wrongly decided; Claim insurance consideration is relevant if kids engaging in adult activities—held to adult standard]\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949475 \\h \u00149\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949476\" \u0014Recap of the Objective Standard:\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949476 \\h \u001410\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949477\" \u0014Reasonable Care\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949477 \\h \u001410\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949478\" \u0014United States v. Carroll Towing Co. (2nd Cir. 1947) [Carroll Towing]—Learned Hand Formula\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949478 \\h \u001410\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949479\" \u0014Commonwealth View: Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850 (HL) Cricket case, old woman; [Negligent when you create a substantial real risk of harm; 2-part test]\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949479 \\h \u001411\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949480\" \u0014New Test for Standard of Care (ORTHODOX TEST) [Bolton v Stone]\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949480 \\h \u001412\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949481\" \u0014Wagon Mound #2 – Privy Council 1967 - [Burden of precautions balanced against Probability and Likelihood but ONLY IN CASES OF SMALL/INFINITESIMAL REAL RISK]\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949481 \\h \u001412\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949482\" \u0014Vaughn v Halifax Bridge\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949482 \\h \u001413\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949483\" \u0014Law Estate\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949483 \\h \u001414\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949484\" \u0014Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt (1979) 29 Aust. LR 217 (HC) [Consider conflicting responsibilities in the SofC]\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949484 \\h \u001414\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949485\" \u0014Latimer v. AEC [1953] AC 643 (HL) [Slipping in an oily factory – application of Bolton]\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949485 \\h \u001414\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949486\" \u0014Watt v. Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 1 WLR 835 (CA) [Hurt fireman – the social utility of the defendant’s conduct is also relevant factor for determining breach of standard of care]\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949486 \\h \u001415\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949487\" \u0014Tomlinson – House of Lords\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949487 \\h \u001415\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949488\" \u0014Paris v Stepany (1951 HL case)\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949488 \\h \u001416\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949489\" \u0014Standard of Care Exam Template\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949489 \\h \u001416\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"_Toc5949490\" \u0014Customs: When Does a Custom Become Part of the Reasonable Standard\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc5949490 \\h \u001416\u0015\u0015\n\u0013 HYPE","cbCaivRCu0hRmubH","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaivRCu0hRmubH","docx",129537,42,"English","# Negligence: The Standard of Care\n## Objective Standard\n## Recap of the Objective Standard\n## Reasonable Care\n## New Test for Standard of Care (Orthodox Test)\n## Customs and the Reasonable Standard\n# Part 3: Duty: General Concepts\n## Negligent Duty and Neighbor Principle\n## Duty to Rescuers\n## Duty to Unborn Children","[{\"question\":\"What does the objective standard of care mean in this outline?\",\"answer\":\"Negligence is assessed by what a reasonable person would do, rather than the individual’s subjective mindset. Cases discussed show how courts apply this objective approach even when capacity is diminished, with adjustments tied to age or understanding.\"},{\"question\":\"How is the standard of care tested in discussions of Bolton v Stone and related cases?\",\"answer\":\"The outline contrasts the orthodox Bolton v Stone approach—focused on whether a substantial real risk was created—with other frameworks that balance the burden of precautions against probability and likely harm. It also highlights limits for small or infinitesimal risks.\"},{\"question\":\"What duties are covered under the duty section beyond general neighbor duty?\",\"answer\":\"The duty coverage includes duties to rescuers and police/intervention contexts, as well as duties relating to unborn children. The outline also addresses duty boundaries using cases that connect duty to foreseeability and the nature of the risk.\"}]","Torts - Winter 2019 - Professor Neyers | DOCX",1788330453]