Stewart v. Motts
Nature of the Case
Stewart (P) sought review of a decision that affirmed a judgment in favor of Motts (D) in a negligence action seeking damages for personal injuries.
Facts
Stewart stopped at Motts’s auto repair shop and offered assistance in repairing an automobile fuel tank. In an effort to start and move the car without the gas tank attached, Stewart suggested and then poured gasoline into the carburetor. Motts was to turn the ignition key at a given moment. The car backfired, caused an explosion and resulted in Stewart suffering severe burns to his upper body. The exact sequence of the events is contested.
Stewart asked the trial judge to instruct the jury that gasoline was a very dangerous substance that required a high degree of care in handling. The judge refused and the verdict went to Motts. Stewart appealed.
Issue
- Is the standard of care of a reasonable person a standard that never varies even for dangerous instrumentalities?
Holding and Rule of Law
- Yes. The standard of care of a reasonable person is a standard that never varies even for dangerous instrumentalities as the duty to act as a reasonable person is dependent upon the circumstances existing.
The sole issue presented is whether there exists a higher standard of extraordinary care for the use of dangerous instrumentalities over and above the standard of reasonable care such that the trial court erred for failing to give an instruction to the jury that Motts should have used a high degree of care in handling gasoline.
There is but one standard of care to be applied to negligence actions involving dangerous instrumentalities. 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.
An actor’s reasonable care is to be measured against the magnitude of the risk which it involves. If there is a risk of death or bodily injury, the highest attention and caution are required. Those who deal with firearms, explosives, poisonous drugs or high tension electricity are required to exercise the closest attention and the most careful precautions.
The trial judge explained to the jury that negligence is the absence of ordinary care which a reasonably prudent person would exercise in the circumstances here presented, and what constitutes ordinary care varies according to the particular circumstances and conditions then existing at the time of the actions, and the amount of care required by law must be in keeping with the degree of danger involved. This charge was proper.
Disposition
Affirmed.