Chapter 4 Negligence

Question 1

1. Negligence:

Answer 1

Duty - to use reasonable care. Obligation by law to conform to certain standard of conduct for protecting others against reasonable risks

Question 2

2. Negligence

Answer 2

Breach - failure to conform to the required standard. Duty owed is question for court. Failed or breached duty question for jury

Question 3

3. Negligence

Answer 3

Causation - a reasonably close causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury. Causation-in-fact and legal

Question 4

4. Negligence

Answer 4

Damages - actual loss

Question 5

Pipher v. Parsell (Steering wheel)

Answer 5

Reasonable person should have foreseen risk, breached duty of care of driver in preventing pulling of wheel

Question 6

Chicago B. Q. and R. v Krayenbuhl (Carrousel)

Answer 6

Failed to take reasonable steps (locking carrousel) to take precautions against foreseeable risk (of child’s injury)

Question 7

Davison v. Snohomish

Answer 7

Not reasonably possible to take the degree of precaution to prevent foreseeable risk

Question 8

Professional S/C

Answer 8

1. To utilize the skill and judgment of a member of that profession (specialty)
2. in good standing in the 3. same circumstances

Question 9

Hodges v. Carter (lawyers)

Answer 9

Custom dictates s/c

Question 10

Robinson v. Lindsay (Snowmobile)

Answer 10

Operation of motorized vehicles exception to child s/c

Question 11

Breuning v. American Family Ins. Co (Psycho)

Answer 11

Still liable for schizophrenic episode while operating motor vehicle as was foreseeable

Question 12

Boise v. Brown (fucked up ankle)

Answer 12

Negligence in Professional s/c requires significant deviation of duty; expert testimony needed when not so obvious a lay person would know

Question 13

Lubitz v. Wells (golf club)

Answer 13

Leaving golf club around child not so dangerous as to constitute negligence

Question 14

Blyth v. Birmingham Water (super frosty)

Answer 14

Mere accident is not an omission of an action that a reasonably prudent person would do and thus not negligence

Question 15

US v. Carroll (negligent math)

Answer 15

A duty of care may be said to exist if the burden of reasonable precautions against harm to others is less than the product of the chances of resulting harm in terms of probability, and the magnitude of the harm. b

Question 16

Vaughn v. Menlove (hey Rick fire!)

Answer 16

The standard for negligence is an objective one. One has behaved negligently if he has acted in a way contrary to how a reasonably prudent person would have acted under similar circumstances.

Question 17

Delair v. McAdoo (Doo your inspection)

Answer 17

Drivers are required to know the condition of the parts of their vehicles that may become dangerous when their dangerous condition could be found through a reasonable inspection.

Question 18

Cordas v. Peerless (fuckin bail)

Answer 18

Reasonable and prudent action is based on the set of circumstances under which the actions took place. Emergency doctrine doesn’t change “duty of care” but “circumstances”

Question 19

B

Answer 19

B(urden) < P(robablity) x L(oss/severity of injury)

Question 20

Negligence Per Se

Answer 20

1. The violation of a statute enacted to protect
   
   2. a class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member
   3. from the type of harm the plaintiff suffered
   4. is negligent per se.

Question 21

Perry v. S.N (diddler on the roof)

Answer 21

Negligence per se needs underlying CL duty

Question 22

Ney v. Yellow Cab (free ride)

Answer 22

If the harm resulting from negligence is foreseeable, then intervening criminal act doesn’t break causal chain