Chapter 9 Negligence and strict liability Flashcards
is behavior that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others. In contrast to intentional torts, which result from a person’s willfully taking actions that are likely to cause injury, negligent torts involve the failure to exercise reasonable care to protect another’s person or property
negligence
an incident that simply could not be avoided, even with reasonable care
unfortunate accident
The standard of care a reasonable person owes another
duty
Failure to live up to the standard of care.
breach of duty
the determination that the plaintiff’s harm was a direct result of the defendant’s breach of duty
actual cause
the extent to which, as a matter of policy, the defendant will be held liable for the consequences of his actions
proximate cause
A compensable loss suffered by the plaintiff
damages
a measurement of the way members of society expect an individual to act in a given situation
reasonable person standard
an action committed with extreme reckless disregard for the property or life of another person
gross negligence
(“the thing speaks for itself.” The plaintiff uses this doctrine to allow the judge or jury to infer that, more likely than not, the defendant’s negligence was the cause of the plaintiff’s harm even though there is no direct evidence of the defendant’s lack of due care.)
res ispa loquitur
A doctrine that allows a judge or jury to infer duty and breach of duty from the fact that a defendant violated a statute that was designed to prevent the type of harm that the plaintiff incurred
negligence per se
allow bartenders and bar owners to be held liable for injuries caused by individuals who become intoxicated at the bar.
dream shop acts
A defense to negligence whereby the defendant can escape all liability by proving that the plaintiff failed to act in a way that would have protected him or her page_G-6from an unreasonable risk of harm and that the plaintiff’s negligent behavior contributed in some way to the plaintiff’s accident.
contributory negligence
allows the plaintiff to recover damages despite proof of contributory negligence as long as the defendant had a final clear opportunity to avoid the action that injured the plaintiff
last clear chance doctrine
A defense accepted in some states whereby the defendant is not liable for the percentage of harm that he or she can prove can be attributed to the plaintiff’s own negligence.
pure comparitive negligence
In some states, a defense whereby the defendant is not liable for the percentage of harm that he or she proves can be attributed to the plaintiff’s own negligence if the plaintiff’s negligence is responsible for less than 50 percent of the harm. If the defendant establishes that the plaintiff’s negligence caused more than 50 percent of the harm, the defendant has no liability
modififed comparitive negligence
occurs when the plaintiff expressly agrees (usually in a written contract) to assume the risk posed by the defendant’s behavior
express assumption of the risk
means that the plaintiff implicitly assumed a known risk
implied assumption of the risk
attempt to encourage selfless and courageous behavior by removing the threat of liability
good samaritan statutes
n unforeseeable event that interrupts the causal chain between the defendant’s breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered
superseding cause
is liability without fault
strict liability
