Fredericks v. Castora (1976) (Π wants higher standards for truck drivers)

a.       Facts- Π is a driver, while Δs are truck drivers. Π and Δs get into a car accident. Π sues Δs for negligence. When Trial Ct finds for Δs, Π appeals and argues that truck drivers should be “held to a higher standard” because of their higher skill level.

b.      Procedural History- Trial Ct found for Δs Π appealed, Ct of appeals affirmed

c.       Issue- Whether a driver should be held to a higher standard considering the length and nature of their driving experience

d.      Holding- No, a driver should NOT be held to a standard that considers the length and nature of their driving experience

e.       Rule- There is only one standard of care when concerned with drivers, reasonably prudent person

f.       Rationale-

                                                              i.      If we tailored the standard of care specific to every individual, we would be unable to apply a reasonable uniform standard

                                                            ii.      Applying the current standard (reasonable person) is difficult enough

                                                          iii.      The only standard of care is that of a reasonably prudent person

g.      Notes-

                                                              i.      “Care does not increase or diminish by calling it names”