Robinson v. Lindsay Facts: Df, 13,was driving a snowmobile belonging to df Lindsay, pulling PL, 11, on an innertube attached by a rope to the snowmobile. Pl thumb was severed when it got caught in the rope. The thumb was reattached but not fully functional. Issue: Whether the minor df’s liability for injuries sustained as a result of his operation of a motorized vehicle or participation in an inherently dangerous activity, is determined by a standard of care exercised by an ordinarily reasonable child of same age, intelligence, maturity, training, and experience would exercise? Holding: No, b/c he was operating a powerful motorized vehicle, he should be held to the standard of care and conduct expected of an adult. Procedure: Jury verdict in favor of Anderson, trial court ordered a new trial, and Df objected. Affirmed. Rule: When a child engages in an inherently dangerous activity, as in the operation of a powerful motorized vehicle, the child should be held to the adult standard of care. Ct. Rationale: Courts have created an exception to the special child standard b/c of the apparent injustice that would occur if a child who caused an injury while engaged in certain dangerous activities were permitted to defend himself by saying that other children similarly situated would not have exercised a degree of care higher than his. The better rationale is that when a child is engaged in an inherently dangerous activity, such as the operation of a powerful mechanized vehicle, the child should be held to an adult standard of care. PL A: The duty of a child to exercise a standard of care that a reasonable child of the same age, maturity, training, and experience would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. Def A: Snowmobile accident claim hundreds of lives every year and based on that the operation of a snowmobile requires adult care and competence. Breunig v. American Family Ins. Co. Facts: Pl’s truck was struck by Df’s car. Df was driving her car in the wrong direction on the highway. Df, while returning home, saw a white light on the back of the car ahead of her. She followed the light for three or four blocks, remembering only waking in a field. Psychiatrist testimony revealed she believed God was steering the car. Df saw the PL truck comng and stepped on the gas in order to become air-borne b/c she knew she could fly b/c Batman does. Issue: Whether, without forewarning or knowledge of disability, df is liable for negligence, when insane ? Holding: Yes. Procedure: Jury verdict for Pl and Df Insurance Co. appealed. Affirmed. Rule: The effect of mental illness must be such as to affect the person’s ability to understand and appreciate the duty which rests upon him to drive his care with ordinary care, or if the insanity does not affect such understanding and appreciation, it must affect his ability to control his car in an ordinarily prudent manner. There must be an absense of notice or forewarning to the person that he may suddenly subject to such a type of insanity or mental illness. Ct. Rationale: Sudden mental incapacity equivalent in its effect to such physical causes as a sudden heart attack, epileptic seizure, stroke, or fainting should be treated alike and not under a general rule of insanity. It is unjust to hold a man responsible for his conduct which he is incapable of avoiding and which incapability was unknown to him prior to the accident. PL A: Insanity is not a defense in negligence actions. Def A: Without forewarning or knowledge the df did not understand or appreciate the duty to drive the care with ordinary care. Heath v. Swift Wings, Inc. Relevant Facts: An airplane crashed immediately after takeoff. On board the plane were the pilot, Fred Heath, his wife, and their son, and a family friend Vance Smathers. All were killed. Mrs. Smathers, prior to takeoff, observed Fred load and then reload the passengers and luggage to improve the balance. After starting the plane it taxied very close to the end of the runway, gained altitude, but did not go very high. She then saw the plane level off pretty low. A mechanical engineer and pilot testified that the pilot should have used flaps to aid in the takeoff. He also opined that a reasonably and ordinarily prudent pilot would have made a controlled landing in the adjacent cornfield after experiencing problem upon takeoff. Legal Issue(s): Whether the standard of care was what that of a reasonable person or a reasonable pilot? Court’s Holding: R. Person, but with a variable degree to account for the specialty of pilots. Procedure: Estates of wife and son brought action against the estate of pilot and owner of plane. Jury determined that pilot was not negligent. Reversed and remanded for new trial. Law or Rule(s): The standard of care required of an individual is the conduct of the reasonably prudent man under the same or similar circumstances. The quantity or degree of care required may vary with the attendant circumstances. Court Rationale: The professional standard remains an objective standard. The standard of professional competence and care customary in similar communities among all pilots. The trial ct improperly introduced a subjective standard: “an ordinary prudent pilot having the same training and experience as Fred Heath.” This allows any jury to impose a different standard of care upon each individual. People possessing a special skill in a particular endeavor must exercise the requisite degree of learning skill and ability of that calling with reasonable and ordinary care. Plaintiff’s Argument: The standard should be that Fred Heath failed to adhere to a standard of care to act as a reasonable and prudent person, exercising the degree of learning, skill, and ability of pilots with reasonable and ordinary care. Defendant’s Argument: The standard of care should be determined by whether the pilot acted with reasonable and ordinary care of a reasonably and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.