Stewart v. Motts case brief, 654 A.2d 535 (1995)

Stewart v. Motts
654 A.2d 535 (1995)

The "Prudent Person" Standard

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant sought review of decision of Pennsylvania Superior Court which affirmed a judgement in favor of appellee in appellant's negligence action seeking damages for personal injuries.

FACTS
The appellant was seriously burned while assisting appellee with the repair of an automobile fuel tank.

ISSUE
-Under the reasonable care standard must the level of care be proportionate to the danger involved?

RULE
-Under the reasonable care standard the level of care must be proportionate to the danger involved

APPLICATION
• The acceptable standard of care is “reasonable care” as well stated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts: The care required is always reasonable care. The standard never varies, but the care which it is reasonable to require of the actor varies with the danger involved in his act and is proportionate to it.
• The greater the danger, the greater the care which must be exercised

HOLDING
• The court affirmed the judgment in favor of appellee finding that it was not error to refuse to instruct the jury that extraordinary care was required when using gasoline, a dangerous substance, because the only standard of care available under the law was reasonable care under the circumstances, and that the jury was properly instructed that the care required was that which a reasonable man would exercise in proportion to the danger involved.

Link to Case:   Stewart v. Motts, 654 A.2d 535 (1995)