Galindo v. TMT Transport, Inc.
1986 Ariz. App. LEXIS 711, 733 P.2d 631, 152 Ariz. 434 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence action, an adult with a mental deficiency or illness is held to the same objective standard of care as an ordinarily careful person without such a condition.
Facts:
- Jose Galindo, a 29-year-old diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, was on leave from the Arizona State Hospital.
- On January 5, 1982, Galindo was a passenger in his family's van, which was parked on the shoulder of Interstate 10.
- Salvatore G. Robles was operating a loaded gasoline truck on the same interstate.
- Robles observed Galindo run from the shoulder, across southbound lanes, across the median, and into the northbound lanes.
- Galindo then turned and ran back across one northbound lane, jumping in front of Robles' truck in what was described as a tackling motion.
- Galindo was struck by the truck and died from his injuries.
- Medical experts testified that Galindo was likely in a confused and irrational state and unable to recognize the danger of his actions.
Procedural Posture:
- Juanita C. Galindo sued TMT Transportation, Inc. and Salvatore G. Robles in an Arizona trial court for wrongful death.
- At trial, Galindo's request for jury instructions based on a subjective standard of care for her son's mental condition was denied.
- The trial court instructed the jury to use the objective 'ordinarily careful person' standard for negligence and contributory negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, TMT Transportation and Robles.
- A judgment was entered in favor of the defendants.
- Juanita C. Galindo, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
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 person's mental deficiency alter the objective 'reasonable person' standard of care required to avoid a finding of contributory negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Lacagnina, J.
No. In a negligence action, a mentally ill or insane person is held to the same standard of care as an ordinarily careful person under the circumstances. The court reasoned that Arizona law recognizes only one standard of care for adults: the objective standard of a reasonable person. This single standard applies equally to a defendant's negligence and a plaintiff's contributory negligence. Citing Prosser and Keeton and the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court affirmed that the law demands an external and objective standard for all persons to ensure uniformity and avoid favoritism. The court rejected creating a subjective standard for the mentally ill, upholding policy rationales such as the difficulty of proving mental incapacity, encouraging custodians to better supervise those with mental deficiencies, and ensuring that innocent victims are compensated.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that mental illness is not an exception to the objective 'reasonable person' standard in negligence law. By refusing to create a subjective standard that would account for an individual's mental deficiencies, the court treats mental conditions differently from physical disabilities, for which the law often makes allowances. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for a plaintiff's mental state to excuse conduct that would otherwise be considered contributorily negligent. Consequently, the financial risk of accidents caused by the unpredictable behavior of individuals with mental illnesses is placed on them or their estates, rather than on other parties involved in the incident.
