Top Law Schools

Ok so here's what I know about it.
Once you've established duty

Look at two components to see whether someone breached the standard of care
1) Know/ Should Know- What did this person actually know AND what should this person have known? Being ignorant of something important doesn’t help ∆. “I didn’t know light was red.” He SHOULD KNOW light was red. Using this knowledge we evaluate…
2) Action in light of knowledge- Reasonable in light of circumstances? Did it take sufficient regard for others foreseeably in danger?

Is this right? Does this determine breach? If so, do we use the hand formula to determine a breach for the standard of care?

Its just I feel like my professor laid it out strange.

Mr.Throwback wrote:Ok so here's what I know about it.
Once you've established duty

Look at two components to see whether someone breached the standard of care
1) Know/ Should Know- What did this person actually know AND what should this person have known? Being ignorant of something important doesn’t help ∆. “I didn’t know light was red.” He SHOULD KNOW light was red. Using this knowledge we evaluate…
2) Action in light of knowledge- Reasonable in light of circumstances? Did it take sufficient regard for others foreseeably in danger?

Is this right? Does this determine breach? If so, do we use the hand formula to determine a breach for the standard of care?

Its just I feel like my professor laid it out strange.

You also need to know if the person had some sort of specialized knowledge...eg. a doctor.

.

Exactly right, and the best way to think about it is the distinction b/w a subjective standard of care, and an objective standard of care. This distinction shows up in many areas of law outside of Torts. If the standard of reasonable care were subjective, then it would be true that if x did not know the light was red, then x did not breach the standard of care by going through the light, because going through a light that you believe to be green is reasonable from a subjective perspective.

But instead, an objective standard of care is used. Rather than asking whether x knew he was going through the light, we ask whether x knew or should have known. This allows for the possibility that although x did not know he was going through the light, he should have known because a reasonable person would have known. And so x still breaches his duty of care.