Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
26 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Define negligence:
|
Conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. M/ consist of either an act or an omission to act where there is a duty to act.
|
|
How do you analyze a negligence problem?
|
1. What d/ D do? Analyze duty of care and whether it was breached. People owe others a duty to us reasonable care so as to avoid unreasonable risks. Duty is breached when the actor fails to exercise such care.
2. What were the results of the D conduct? Did the D conduct actually cause P injury; did it proximately cause P injury; did P suffer any damages. 3. What did P do? Was the P contrib negl and was there an assumption of risk - if so, P own conduct defeats his claim. |
|
What are the prima facie elements of negligence?
|
Duty -one has the duty to act as a reasonable person w/ act under similar circumstances, so as to avoid unreasonable risk of harm to others.
Breach - failure to conform to the reasonable person standard of care in a way that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others. (Weigh burden on D to avoid risk and the utility of D conduct, against the probability of and likely gravity of the harm D conduct m/ cause) Causation - m/b a causal connection b/w the D act or omission and the P injuries. Damages - P has to suffer actual damages or c/n prevail. |
|
What is the general standard of care?
|
Have a duty to act as a reasonable person w/ act in similar circumstances as to avoid unreasonable risk to others.
|
|
What is negligence per se?
|
Violation of a criminal statute which has three requirements:
1. if the statute provides a criminal penalty, 2. statute was designed to prevent kind of harm that befell the P and 3. P was a member of the class intended to be protected by the statute. |
|
When can D avoid liability in a negl per se claim?
|
If D was unaware of the particular occasion for compliance, if compliance w/h/b more dangerous than violating the statute, if D reasonably attempted to comply or faced an emergency that prevented compliance.
|
|
What is the balancing test in determining if the D breached the standard?
|
Burden on the D to avoid risk and the utility of the D conduct is balanced against the probability and probable gravity of harm D conduct is likely to cause.
BEAMS (Bur, Util, Prob, Grav) |
|
What is the foreseeable P?
|
You only owe a duty of care to foreseeable P.
|
|
Must an indiv act affirmatively for the benefit of others?
|
No, however, there are exceptions:
1. D act created the peril 2. A special relt mandates affirmative acts 3. D has undertaken to act for P benefit. |
|
What are the three means of proving a negl claim?
|
Direct evidence, circumstantial evidence and res ipsa loquitur.
|
|
What is res ipsa loquitur?
|
(The thing speaks for itself)
Permits the factfinder to infer negl, where there is no direct evidence of negl. P m/ prove that: 1. There is no direct evidence of how D behaved in connection with the event that caused the injury 2. The event is of a kind that would not normally occur in the absence of negl 3. D was in exclusive control of the instrumentality causing injury 4. P d/n voluntarily contribute to the event that caused his injury. |
|
What is the difference b/w cause in fact and proximate cause?
|
Cause in fact is the determination, under either the but for test or substantial factor test of whether D brought about P injuries.
Proximate cause involves the policy considerations limiting the scope of liability, determined primarily on the concept of foreseeability of risks and consequences. (Was the P injury w/in the scope of the risk created by D negl?) |
|
What is the But For test?
|
D conduct is considered a cause in fact of an event if the vent w/n/h occurred but for the D conduct. Whether D conduct is the sole cause or one of several concurrent causes. Whether D conduct is the cause in fact of an event - standard test.
|
|
What is the Substantial Factor test?
|
D conduct is said to cause an event when it was a material element or substantial factor in producing it - only if there are multiple causes and the one youre examining is not a but for cause.
|
|
What is an intervening cause?
|
1. Coming into active operation
2. In producing the result 3. After D negl 4. From a source independent of D negl. |
|
What are foreseeable intervening causes?
|
Subseq forces which one should reasonably anticipate, or those which D s/ reasonably anticipate under the particular circumstances.
|
|
Indiv are responsible for foreseeable intervening causes of damage. What m/b foreseeable, the intervening force itself, or the result?
|
The result. Regardless of the cause, if the result is foreseeable, the original actor w/b liable. Exceptions:
1. Malicious, intentional tortious intervening acts 2. Intervention by one with a higher ethical duty to the victim 3. Extraordinarily negligent intervening conduct 4. Acts of God, where the resulting harm is of a different kind from that which made D conduct negl. |
|
What is a superseding force?
|
Force coming into being after D negl act, which cancels D liability by breaking the chain of causation from D act to P injury. Unforeseeability of the results of the subseq force relieves D of liability. Not considered w/in the risk created by D original act.
|
|
In order to prevail on a negl claim, the P has to prove actual damages, he c/n win w/o such proof. What types of damages qualify?
|
General - non-economic losses.
Special - economic losses P suffers, past and future. C/n recover punitive damages b/c supposed to punish D for particularly heinous conduct, negl is not intentional. |
|
What are the defenses to negl?
|
Contributory negl
Assumption of risk |
|
What is assumption of risk?
|
Indiv m/ know and appreciate the risk - P m/ actually know the risk he is incurring (objective)
M/ freely and voluntarily assume it. P m/b completely barred from recovery. |
|
What is contributory negl?
|
P conduct which d/n meet the standard of care for his own protection and is a cause of harm.
When it applies, it is a complete bar to any recovery by P. 46 states have modified to comparative negl by determining proportions of fault b/w D and P and allowing partial recovery due to fairness. |
|
What is the difference b/w contrib and avoidable consequences?
|
Contrib - negl by P that takes place b/f any damage has occurred - P w/n/h suffered any harm.
Avoidable consequences - after a legal wring has occurred, while some damages m/h/b averted it bars recovery only for damages that c/h/b avoided. |
|
What is comparative negl?
|
Rejects the all or nothing approach of contrib negl, and divides liability b/w P and D in proportion to their fault. P is allowed to recover a portion of his damages, reflecting the percentage of his injuries D caused.
|
|
What are the major types of compar negl?
|
Pure - P c/ recover damages from D no matter to what extent his own negl contributed to his injuries
Modified - P c/ only recover damages if his own fault caused less than a set fraction of his own injuries. |
|
What is the doctrine of Last Clear Chance?
|
Used by P to rebut a claim of contrib negl - where the P w/ otherwise b/ ehld to h/b contrib, the D w/b liable if she had the last chance to avoid the harm, yet failed to do so.
|