Cervelli v. Graves
661 P.2d 1032 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining negligence, a person's superior knowledge, skill, and experience are part of the 'circumstances' a jury must consider in applying the reasonably prudent person standard. A jury instruction that directs the jury to disregard a person's exceptional skills is an incorrect and misleading statement of the law.
Facts:
- On February 22, 1980, Larry B. Cervelli was driving his pickup truck on Interstate 80 in Wyoming.
- The road was extremely slick and covered with 'black ice'.
- Cervelli's vehicle began to fishtail, and he lost control, causing his pickup to slide.
- Kenneth H. Graves, an employee of DeBernardi Brothers, Inc., was driving a cement truck behind Cervelli.
- Graves was an experienced professional truck driver with over ten years of experience and a class 'A' commercial driver's license.
- While attempting to pass Cervelli's sliding vehicle, Graves also lost control of his cement truck.
- The two vehicles collided, resulting in numerous injuries to Cervelli.
Procedural Posture:
- Larry B. Cervelli filed a personal injury lawsuit against DeBernardi Brothers, Inc. and its employee, Kenneth H. Graves, in a Wyoming district court (trial court).
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict finding no negligence on the part of the defendants.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict.
- Cervelli filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the jury was improperly instructed.
- The trial court's inaction resulted in the motion being deemed denied under court rules.
- Cervelli (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury instruction that defines the 'reasonable, careful person' as not being 'the exceptionally skillful one' misstate the law by improperly preventing the jury from considering a party's superior skills as part of the totality of the circumstances in a negligence analysis?
Opinions:
Majority - Raper, Justice
Yes, the instruction misstates the law. The standard of care in negligence is that of a reasonable person under 'the same or similar circumstances,' and those circumstances include the actor's own characteristics, such as superior knowledge or skill. The trial court's instruction improperly limited the jury's analysis by telling them that the standard is not 'the exceptionally skillful one,' which could have misled them into disregarding evidence of Graves's professional driving experience. The court reasoned, in line with the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 289, that if an actor possesses superior qualities, they are required to exercise them in a manner reasonable under the circumstances. While this does not create a separate, higher legal standard for professional drivers as a class, their individual skill is a critical circumstance for the jury to consider. The court also found error in a separate instruction that incorrectly applied the 'known and obvious danger' rule from premises liability to a vehicle collision case, as doing so would improperly resurrect contributory negligence in a state with a comparative negligence statute.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'reasonable person' standard in negligence cases involving individuals with specialized skills. The decision establishes that while professionals are not held to a distinct, higher legal standard of care as a matter of law (like in malpractice), their superior abilities are a factual component of the 'circumstances' that the jury must consider. This prevents a skilled individual from being judged by the standards of a novice and ensures the standard of care is subjectively tailored to the actor's actual attributes. The ruling also reinforces the distinction between negligence doctrines, confining the 'known and obvious danger' rule to premises liability and preventing its use to circumvent comparative fault principles in other contexts.
Unlock the full brief for Cervelli v. Graves