Vaughan v. Menlove, bad news for morons

Last week I described negligence torts by saying, "Of course you didn't mean to, but you should have known better." That explanation opens the door for morons to say, "Dude. No way. I didn't know better. Seriously. You should get high with me some time. I don't know better. I don't know shit. You'll see."

Today I want you to do a fist pump for Vaughan v. Menlove. This case shot down the moron defense with the concept of reasonable prudence.

Vaughan v. Menlove, 132 Eng. Rep. 490 (1837)

Facts
The defendant made a pile of hay on his property, which he rented from the plaintiff. Over a period of 5 weeks the defendant was warned multiple times that the hay could catch fire. The defendant responded that he would "chance it." The hay caught fire and burned down multiple buildings on the property. Plaintiff sued for damages. The judge instructed the jury to examine the actions of the defendant, and decide whether his behavior was that of a "reasonably prudent man." The defendant was found liable, and appealed on the grounds that he acted to the best of his own judgment.

Questions
1. Should a general standard of reasonable prudence determine whether a defendant is negligent?
2. Was the decision correct?

Holding
1. Yes
2. Yes

Reasoning
1. Every individual does not afford their own standard of reasonable behavior. Since prudence is the issue in negligence cases, juries should determine what behavior is prudent.
2. Prior law holds that individuals must enjoy their property in a way that does not injure others. The individual should be held liable for injuries, unless they resulted from unexpected events. The defendant in this case was repeatedly warned about the danger of the hay. The judge's instructions had legal precedent and correctly identified the issues before the jury.