Lussan v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company – Case Brief

University / Undergraduate
Modified: 19th Nov 2023
Wordcount: 326 words


Law Expert

Disclaimer: This case brief was produced by one of our law study experts as an informational resource for law students and professionals researching case law. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of

Cite This

Keywords: reasonable person, negligence, law, case briefs

Lussan v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company, 280 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1960).

Case Summary

Facts: D was driving when one of the two passengers discovered a bee inside the car. D looked down and tried to swat the bee, and accidentally lurched the car into a vehicle on the curb. Lussan (P) was injured and brought suit. The jury found in favor of D and Lussan appealed the court’s denial of motions for instructed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Issue: In determining negligence, can the actions of a reasonable person under the same or reasonable circumstances include instinctive and natural responses?

Holding and Rule: Yes. The legal standard to be met in order to find negligence is that no reasonable man could infer that the prudent man would have acted this way. This case involves a common occurrence – the involuntary reflex responses by which nature protects life from harm or apprehended harm. The standard of performance in the law is not what had to be done to avoid damage, but that which prudent human beings would have done or not done. The jury in these circumstances concluded that this was normal and prudent human conduct.

Disposition: Affirmed.

Notes: The jury determines whether the defendant’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.

Related posts:

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Table of Contents

Get Academic Help Today!

Encrypted with a 256-bit secure payment provider