1. REVIEW AN OUTLINE OF CONSENT ENTERINGSCOPEEFFECTIVENESS PUBLIC NECESSITY: 2 CONTRASTING RULES— (1) SIROCCO (2) WEGNER

2. REVIEW (CONT.) PRIVATE NECESSITY (THE INCOMPLETE PRIVILEGE) 1. THE DOCTRINE: PLOOF ALSO RIGHT TO ENTER AND RETRIEVE PROPERTY 2. THE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION: VINCENT INTRODUCTION TO NEGLIGENCE: THE FIVE ELEMENTS

3. DUTY OF CARE (i.e. HOW WE DETERMINE REASONABLE ARE) THE RPP TEST (STEWART) THE PROPOSED “HIGH DEGREE OF CARE” INSTRUCTION (P. 115 SECOND TO BOTTOM PARAGRAPH) THE COURT DENIED IT THE SINGLE STANDARD OF CARE: REASONABLE CARE

4. DETERMINING REASONABLE CARE (Cont.) KEY QUESTIONS: 1. DOES THE STANDARD OF CARE VARY? 2. DOES THE AMOUNT OF CARE VARY?

5. REASONABLE CARE (Cont.) 3. WHAT CAUSES THE AMOUNT OF CARE TO VARY? DANGER/ RISK: PROBABILITY OF HARM 4. WHAT IS REASONABLE CARE? ENTER THE RPP.

6. REASONABLE CARE (CONCLUSION) 5.WHO DETERMINES WHAT CARE A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD EXERCISE? NOTE 1 AFTER STEWART: SUMMARY STANDARD OF CARE REMAINS THE SAME AMOUNT OF CARE CHANGES

7. BAJI: NEGLIGENCE AND ORDINARY CARE Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. It is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care. Ordinary or reasonable care is that care which persons of ordinary prudence would use in order to avoid injury to themselves or others under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.

8. THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE WILSON ISSUES: INSTRUCTIONS 9 AND 10 (P. 119) 1. HOW DOES AN EMERGENCY AFFECT WHAT THE RPP DOES? 2. HOW DOES AN EMERGENCY AFFECT THE RPP STANDARD?

9. MORE ON THE RPP TEST 1.IS THE RPP TEST SUBJECTIVE OR OBJECTIVE? 2.HOW DO WE ACCOUNT FOR INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES: HEIGHT, INTELLIGENCE, ETC. 3.HOW DOES RPP ACT IF NO RISK?

10. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STANDARD & AMOUNT OF CARE LAW: STANDARD OF CARE (RPP) APPLIED TO: CIRCUMSTANCES RESULT: AMOUNT OF CARE NEEDED CAN BE HIGH CAN BE LOW DECIDED BY JURY

11. MORE CIRCUMSTANCES: AGE OF THE ACTOR ROBINSON THE CHILD STANDARD OF CARE RATIONALE?EXCEPTION: 1. ADULT 2. INHERENTLY DANGEROUS RATIONALE?

12. BAJI 3.35: STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR A MINOR BAJI 3.35. Standard Of Conduct For Minor A minor is not held to the same standard of care as an adult. A minor is required to exercise the degree of care which ordinarily is exercised by minors of like maturity, intelligence and capacity under similar circumstances. You must determine whether the conduct of [plaintiff] [defendant] _______ was such as might reasonably have been expected of a minor of like maturity, intelligence and capacity, acting under similar circumstances.

13. MORE ON CHILDREN THE RULE OF SEVENS HYPO: THE REASONABLE FOUR YEAR OLD TREAT CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE DIFFERENTLY?

14. MORE “CIRCUMSTANCES” 1.HYPO: THE COUNTRY ROAD 2.HYPO: THE PAINT THINNER 3.HYPO: THE WORN TIRE 4.HYPO: THE BROKEN CARBURETOR 5.HILL: EXPERIENCE 6.HYPO: THE DRUNK 7.CREASY: MENTAL ILLNESS

15. MORE RPP: THE “CIRCUMSTANCES” TWO KINDS OF CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. INTERNAL 2. EXTERNAL INTERNAL: CREASY (125) INTERNAL: HILL (128) INTERNAL: SHEPHERD (133) QUERY: WHAT IF PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS WERE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT?

16. RPP: IN PERSPECTIVE (GOBBO) DETERMINING WHETHER GOBBO WAS NEGLIGENT ARGUMENTS: EVIDENCE VERDICT VERDICT “SUDDEN-MEDICAL-EMERGENCY” DEFENSE? PHYSICAL/MENTAL ILLNESS: TREAT THE SAME?