Case Law Bonus Post: Wallace v. DeVeas

This is similar to Bangs in that it describes factors we can consider when evaluating whether or not someone upheld the appropriate “standard of care”- whether they acted in reasonable care. It tells us that someone’s skill and knowledge can be considered in determining a standard of care, and gives a guideline for what that standard of care looks like a specific case, that of members of a trade or profession. Let’s take ziplining as an example. Most laypeople don’t know much about ziplining safety, so it might look like reasonable care to us to, say, secure a person to a zipline by only one hook. But let’s say that’s not the standard professional practice. Maybe the standard of that industry requires a back-up. A ziplining professional who didn’t use a backup hook, then, would arguably not be using reasonable care.