Can a person who makes an assumption that they are "free from negligence" be considered to be a "reasonably prudent person" in a motor vehicle accident?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Goldsmith v. Mills, 130 Cal.App.2d 493, 279 P.2d 51 (Cal. App. 1955):
Appellants' objection is that the instruction does not state that only a person free from negligence may indulge in such an assumption. See Larson v. Holland, 118 Cal.App.2d[130 Cal.App.2d 497] 520, 524, 257 P.2d 1014. The instruction does not use the express words 'a person free from negligence', but in effect says the same thing by stating, 'an invitee in the absence of a appearances that caution him, or would caution a reasonably prudent person in a like position to the contrary.'
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
