Chapter 4 review Flashcards
a wrongful act that was knowingly committed
International Tort
a wrongful act that was not knowingly committed
Unintentional Tort
One who commits a tort
Tortfeasor
Negligence (unintentional)
Plaintiff needs to prove all 4 questions
- Did the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care?
- Did the defendant breach that duty?
- Did the plaintiff suffer a recognizable injury?
- Was the defendants breach the factual and proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury?
As a general rule, a person owes a duty of care towards those around them or who own land around them.
Duty of Care
Do yo have to come to someone’s aid? no
Do storeowners owe customers a duty of care? yes
Duty to act with reasonable care towards others based upon a reasonable person standard
Reasonable Care
Ex. must drive with care so pedestrians and other motorists are not injured.
Question becomes “how would the reasonable person believe they should act” not “how would the reasonable person act?”
A professional focuses on the skill set of the reasonable professional in that field and not merely the reasonable person found in society
Duty of professionals
Malpractice is often the resulting claim. Malpractice when a doctor commits negligence (ex.) We judge the heart surgeon against the heart surgeon.
Rex is a divorce attorney who forgets to file a certain motion for his client Amie. Amie accuses Rex of negligence and he says "listen, ask 10 people out of the street and they will tell you that they don't know what elections need to be filed in a case like this." Who will rex be judged against? Average person? Average attorney? Average Divorce attorney?
Rex would be judged against an average divorce attorney.
*Injury has to result for damages to be awarded, damages may be compensatory or punitive.
*Plaintiff has to prove causation,
Causation in Fact: act or omission caused the damage.
Injury Requirement and Damages
Ex. Ran a red light, cannot sue because you missed something like a job interview.
Causation in fact
act or omission caused the damage (factual causation) “But for?”test
Proximate Cause
Strong enough connection to justify holding the defendant responsible. Forseeable?
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
Plaintiff was waiting for the train standing on the railroads platform and a package of fireworks falls on the ground and injures the plaintiff. The plaintiff was unable to recover damages because the harm was not forseeable (Proximate causation)
- Did the defendant owe a duty of care? Yes
- Breach of care? Yes
- Injury? Yes
- a) Factual cause? Yes - but for?
b) Proximate causation? Forseeable? No
Plaintiff must prove 3 things that prove Breach occurred: - Plaintiff was owed a duty of care under a statute.
- The defendant committed the conduct prohibited by the statute in question.
- Statute was designed to prevent this type of injury.
Negligence Per Se
ex. Speeding, you are breaking a statute when you speed.
Helps plaintiff create a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant who must then defend against such presumption.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
ex. plaintiff can’t move knee after a knee surgery
Susan is driving down the road when a large box falls from the back of a truck. The box strikes Susan’s car causing injury. Would either Res Ipsa Loquitor or Negligence Per Se apply?
Res Ipsa Loquitor
Mike is driving his Buick down the road while speeding. He runs into Kristen who is turning onto the road in front of him. Kristen’s car is damaged.
Is Mike liable for negligence?
Could either Res Ipsa Loquitor or Negligence Per Se apply?
Yes, Mike is liable
and Negligence Per Se
These 4 are defenses to what?
- Assumption of Risk
- Plaintiff entered into the situation knowing the risks
- Need to show 1) Plaintiff knew of the risk 2) Plaintiff assumed the risk
- Intervening Cause – something that breaks the chain of causation.
Defenses to Negligence
Jose and Charlie visit Arnold’s Amusement Park. While at the amusement park Jose is injured while partaking in a duel with Charlie using Styrofoam bats. Charlie took a wild swing and Jose’s platform where he was standing broke at the base causing his injury.
Can Jose sue Charlie? Can Jose sue the park?
-No Negligence
-Assumption of risk or consent
-Maybe no assumption of risk
No Jose cannot sue the park
Arthur is walking down the sidewalk when a driver from the road jumps the curb with his car. The out of control car strikes Arthur. While Arthur is waiting for an ambulance, a truck drives by and a rock from the truck hits Arthur.
What negligence defense might the driver of the car raise regarding the injury from the rock?
Intervening Cause
In some states this is not a bar to recovery if there is a “last clear chance” for the defendant to avoid the harm
Contributory Negligence
Bill is driving down University Avenue. He runs a red light and hits Jennifer. Jennifer had obeyed all traffic lights but was texting. Jennifer wants to sue Bill.
What result if her state has a pure contributory negligence standard?
No recovery