1.Was the action foreseeable?
2.What is the standard of care?
a.RPP – Reasonably Prudent Person standard – unless the actor is a child, the std. of conduct is that of a reasonable person under like circumstances.
b.Deviations from RPP: 
i.Professionals
*Common Carrier Standard – Utmost care standard; strict liability
Andrews v. United Airlines (overhead compartment case)
ii.Children
-Standard is that of a reasonable person of like
1.Age
2.Intelligence
3.Experience
4.Like circumstances
-Use adult standard when
1.Inherently dangerous activity (not skiing-Gross v. Allen)
2.Dangerous instrumentality
3.Trained in adult activity (Q. is whether it requires a license? *Dellwo v. Pearson – speedboat held to adult standard of care)
-Supervisor/parent may be liable
iii.Physically disabled standard is reasonable person under like disability (Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen – blind man held to standard of the reasonably prudent blind person)
iv.Mentally incompetent – no relief from liability; standard = reasonable man under like circumstances (God told driver to fly)
v.Voluntary Intoxication – impairment is disregarded; standard = same as though not intoxicated  (Robinson v. Pioche, Bayerque & Co. – A drunken man is as much entitled to a safe street as a sober one, and much more in need of it.
vi.Emergency situations — (Lyons v. Midnight Sun Transportation; man who pulled out in front of truck; with or without emergency, the standard of care a person must exercise is still that of a RPP under the circumstances.