In a partnership of A, B, and C, A commits fraud which creates a liability to the
partnership of $9,000. If the three partners share profits and losses equally, A‘s liability
to the partnership for his fraudulent act is $3,000.
Think about and then discuss why the reasonable standard of care differs for different
categories of individuals (children, physically disabled, mentally disabled, people with
special skills, people acting in emergencies, those in violation of a statute.) Is there any
logic on which to base these differences because of societal need and expectations?
Does justice demand a different result? Why would the courts make these distinctions?