McDermott v. State

Summary

The court held that the trial court applied an improper assumed-duty standard when it treated traffic cones as establishing the defendant's full duty to protect pedestrians. Industry standards were relevant but not conclusive, and the proper inquiry was ordinary negligence involving duty, breach, causation, and injury. Because the wrong legal standard was used, the court ordered a new trial rather than judgment for the state; proximate cause remained a factual issue for the trier of fact.