I'm Batman

I was confused after the Vaughan v. Menlove post. People with disabilities wouldn't be held to the standard of ordinary prudence, would they?

Of course not. Today we'll look at two cases involving physical and mental disability in tort law.

Roberts v. State of Louisiana 396 So.2d 566 (1981)

Facts
Mike Burson worked at a concession stand located within a Louisiana post office. Burson was totally blind. He had attended special mobility training and sometimes walked without a cane. While walking to the post office bathroom without his cane, Burson literally bumped into William Roberts. Roberts fell and injured his hip. Under respondeat superior, Roberts filed a lawsuit against the State of Louisiana.

Questions
1. Was Robert's injury the result of negligent behavior by Burson?

Holding
1. No

Reasoning
1. Prudence is contextual, and physical disabilities are taken into account. Instead of being judged against the fictional ordinary man of reasonable prudence, Burson must exercise the care of an ordinary man of reasonable prudence who cannot see. Experts testified that it is not uncommon for the blind to walk without a cane in familiar settings. Using a cane in a crowded place can be more dangerous than walking without it. Further, Burson was not walking too fast or in an otherwise reckless manner.

Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co. 173 N.W.2d 619 (1970)

Facts
Erma Veith believed that she had a special relationship with god, and was the chosen one to survive the end of the world. While Veith was driving home, God took control of the steering wheel and sent the car into oncoming traffic. Veith expected to escape the car by flying out, because Batman could do it. Her car hit a truck, jumped a ditch, and ended up in a field. Her insurance company was sued based on her negligence. Experts concluded that Veith had paranoid schizophrenia of the acute type, and she plead insanity.

Questions
1. Is insanity a valid defense in negligence cases?
2. Does the insanity defense free Veith from liability?

Holding
1. Yes
2. No

Reasoning
1. Insanity is a valid defense in negligence suits if two conditions are met. First, “the person has no reasonable forewarning that an existing condition could cause such an incident.” Second, “the condition acts suddenly and prevents the person from conforming conduct to the standard of the reasonable person.”
2. It was determined in court that Veith’s symptoms prior to the accident were intermittent. Prosecution argued that Veith should therefore have realized she was not a safe driver. The jury affirmed and the appeals court agreed as well.

Notes
I didn't dig too deeply into this case file, but I'm skeptical of the whole she should have realized she had mental illness conclusion.