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.