Chapter 10 Negligence Flashcards
Negligence Elements
1) Duty. 2) Breach of Duty. 3) Causation. 4) Damages or injury.
- Duty
What (is) Duty: To act as a reasonably prudent person under all circumstances.
To Whom is the duty owed: Owed to all reasonably foreseeable plaintiffs.
Palsgraf v. L.I.R.R. (Railroad case)
The Court said: “The duty of care is owed to reasonably foreseeable plaintiffs.” Railroad won this case! Also known as the zone of danger.
Duty: Forseeability
Will figure into negligence law in all four of the elements.
Hernandez vs. Arizona Board of Regents
A fraternity held a party where a minor consumed alcohol. The minor, leaving the party drunk, drove his car into the plaintiff causing injuries. Social host liability applies here. When you have a party, anyone who leaves your house drunk and drives, has your liability on the bumper of their car in CT! Frat was held responsible for the plaintiff, and any person that may be hurt by the plaintiff!
What Duty? Prudent/Ordinary Care
Prudent: exercising caution or circumspection as to danger or risk under all circumstances. The circumstances matter!
Owners and possessors (tenants) of land:
Duty to: Keep premises free from dangerous conditions, warn of the existence of known dangerous conditions and repair them, knowledge includes what you should have known (constructive notice).
Culli vs. Marathon Petroleum Co.
Culli slipped on the clearish slippery substance in gas station. When she sued, the defendant claimed to have not had any knowledge of the existence of the dangerous condition.
The Court said: Based on the pattern of the owners, the court imposed knowledge onto the Gas station owner!
Owner had the knowledge to fix this recurring pattern but they turned their face away and did not. They had an obligation to stay in the kiosk, only to leave to restock things (apparently) and they knew that people always spill things, but they do not leave to clean it immediately, therefore they had the knowledge but chose to not to fix it.
May a property owner avoid liability by claiming lack of knowledge?
Knowledge may be “constructed” by law and circumstances (constructive knowledge) even where actual knowledge was absent, if the dangerous condition: existed for a sufficient amount of time so that it would have been discovered, or was part of a pattern of conduct or a recurring incident.
Duty: Professionals
Must act as a reasonably prudent professional (requisite skill, knowledge and expertise).
Example: Accountants must act with the requisite care, skill, knowledge and expertise of other accountants.
Professional Negligence/Malpractice Claims
The jury does not know what the doctor is supposed to know or how the doctor is supposed to act or not act! Therefore they require expert testimony!
No affirmative duty to help someone in danger
You have no duty to them! However if you choose to help someone in danger, you are going to be held as a reasonably prudent person!
Good Samaritan Law
This insulates people from liability, if they do in fact act, but do not do so prudently! As long as you acted in good faith, then you wont be liable for not acting reasonably. Statutes are interpreted by courts, and they are different in states.
Exceptions: Relationship (parent-child; employer-employee. If you put someone in danger.
- Breach of Duty
May be shown by comparison of the costs of being careful versus the risk of harm.
Jury’s decision: Weighing the considerations to determine what the “reasonably prudent person” would have done under the circumstances.
Breach of Duty may be shown by:
1) Failure to meet industry standards, customs or practice. 2) Proof of Violation of Statute (Negligence per se). 3) Res Ipsa Loquitor.
Failure to meet Industry Standards, Customs or Practice
Caveat: The whole industry may be careless!
Proof of Violation of Statute (Negligence per se)
Where the legislature has already determined what conduct is reasonably prudent and what conduct is not! Then it is no longer up to the jury to have to make that determination. Selling alcohol to a minor is a crime–and, therefore, is also a breach of the duty of care!
Res Ipsa Loquitor
The thing speaks for itself!
1) The incident that produced the injury was of a kind that would not have resulted but for someone’s carelessness, and 2) the instrumentality of the injury was in the exclusive control of the Defendant, then the burden of proof is shifted to the Defendant to prove that he was NOT careless (Rather than remaining on the Plaintiff to prove that the Defendant WAS careless).
Anderson vs. Service Merchandise Company
Anderson sued both SMC and Sylvania (about getting in head and neck by a light fixture at the retail store), relying on res ipsa loquitor to prove the breach of duty.
The Court said: Service Merchandise was in “exclusive control” of the premises for the purposes of res ipsa loquitor, because it possessed and controlled the site of the accident to protect Anderson. Anderson won!
- Causation
Causation requires both Actual Cause and Legal Cause.
Actual Cause (Cause in Fact)
“But for the negligence, the injury would not have occurred” AND Proximate cause! Example: But for my failure to stop at the stop sign, the injury to the other driver would not have occurred.” Therefore my failure to stop at the stop sign caused the other drivers injury.
Legal Cause (Proximate Cause)
Is the injury “a natural and probable result” of the breach of duty? (Foreseeability)
Tu Loi vs. New Plan Realty Trust
1) Tu Loi sued the property owner for failure to maintain the Stop sign. The defendant claimed the incident that caused the injury was not foreseeable.
2) The Court said: A tortfeasor is not relieved from liability simply because his victim suffered a foreseeable harm in an unforeseeable manner!
3) You need to foresee that the conduct might result in the injury! (foresee a fire happening, do not necessarily need to see the EXACT mechanism of the fire starting (the terrorist who set the place on fire). Although the exact mechanism could not be foreseen, New plan Realty Trust can’t be relieved here! They are is still responsible!
- Damage or Injury
The plaintiff must actually suffer an injury-either a bodily injury or an economic loss (i.e. property damage).
