negligence Flashcards
negligence
In a negligence action, P must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence: (1) the legal duty D owed to P, (2) was breached by D, and the breach was a
(3) factual and (4) proximate cause of (5) P’s injury.
duty
T owed L a duty to act with the degree of care of a
reasonably prudent person partially deaf adult under the circumstances.
breach
To prove breach, L must show, by a
preponderance of the evidence, T did not act with the degree of care of a reasonably
prudent partially deaf adult
actual cause (but for cause)
L can show T was a factual cause of
her injury. But for T’s negligent failure to look to his right when passing the
intersection, L would not have been injured,
proximate cause
T is liable only if L’s
injuries were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of not looking to his right
before passing the intersection. Generally, if a reasonable person in D’s position
would have foreseen the type of injury that actually resulted to P from D’s breach,
proximate cause is satisfied. //// In other
words, injury inflicted by L’s iguana are not within the scope of the risk created by L’s
negligent conduct
negligence per se
For negligence per se to apply to the Animal Welfare Code provision,
the taco truck owner must show: [1] the actor’s conduct violates a statute; [2] the statute
is designed to protect against the type of accident the actor’s conduct causes; [3] the
accident victim is in the class of persons the statute is designed to protect; [4] the
actor’s conduct that violated the statute caused the victim’s injury; AND [5] even if the
prior elements are met, the actor (L) fails to establish a legally recognized “excuse.”
violation
explain how he violated the law
type of accident
But the type of injury /
accident the Code provision was designed to protect against is the /// explain what the provision is supposed to protect
class of persons
explain which type of people code/provision is supposed to protect
causation per se
explain causation with what happened to with the provisions
exceptions for per se
1 childhood, physical disability, or physical incapacitation;
2 The actor exercises reasonable care in attempting to comply with the statute
3 The actor’s compliance with the statute would involve a greater risk of physical harm to the actor or
4 The actor’s violation of the statute is due to the confusing way in which the
requirements of the statute are presented to the publi
5 The actor neither knows nor should know of the factual circumstances that render the statut
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Of a kind that ordinarily does NOT occur in the absence of negligence;
Caused by an agent or instrumentality within the defendant’s exclusive control; AND
NOT due to any action on the part of the plaintiff
proximate cause extra
An intervening cause is an outside force or action that contributes to the plaintiff’s harm after the defendant’s breach has occurred. If the intervening cause is unforeseeable, it is a superseding cause and the defendant’s liability to the plaintiff is cut off from that point forward.
1)unforeseeable, criminal act, intentional tort, acts of god
2)foreseeable Further negligent acts are considered foreseeable
3)Courts have long held that injuries sustained when running from danger are foreseeable and that injuries sustained to the rescuer during a rescue attempt are foreseeable***
proximate cause extra
An intervening cause is an outside force or action that contributes to the plaintiff’s harm after the defendant’s breach has occurred. If the intervening cause is unforeseeable, it is a superseding cause and the defendant’s liability to the plaintiff is cut off from that point forward.
1)unforeseeable, criminal act, intentional tort, acts of god
2)foreseeable Further negligent acts are considered foreseeable
3)Courts have long held that injuries sustained when running from danger are foreseeable and that injuries sustained to the rescuer during a rescue attempt are foreseeable***
