negligence Flashcards
Negligence
duty
breach
causation
damages
Duty
I only owe a duty to foreseeable plaintiffs in the zone of danger
must act as a
reasonably prudent person
Duty of a landowner
Unknown trespasser- no duty of care to unknown trespasser
known trespasser- duty to warn of known dangers
licensee (social guest)- personal (not business)– duty to warn of known dangers
invitee- business–warn, inspect, and make safe
Duty of a parent to supervise or control their child
parent knows or should have known their child would cause harm
duty to aid someone
no duty, except if i try to render aid, then i must exercise reasonable care
if i see someone drowning and something bad happens,
not liable if i exercised reasonable
duty to aid because of special relationship
common carrier- train plane, innkeeper, teacher student
they have a duty no matter what
duty of a child
has to act like children of age, maturity, etc.
duty of professional
act like similar professionals in the community
breach
failure to comply with duty of care
causation
two types
actual cause
but for d’s actions no harm would have occurred
proximate cause
if it was foreseaable
you need both
for a case of negligence
is it foreseeable that if i was texting and driving
you would hit car in front. yes
foreseeabilitiy will be a question
of fact
damages
actual physical injury
relates to
p and d
what happens if you break your leg and now a bunch of shit happens
intervening- foreseeable– will pay for all damages
superseding- cuts off the other things
superseding if
1) act of god
2) intentional tort
3) criminal act
4) anything fact patter says is unforeseeable
almost everything is
foreseeable
negligence per se
1) violation of ordinance
2) injured party is about class of ppl trying to protect
3) injury is kind of injury trying to protect
res ipsa
1) whatever occurred does not normally happen absent negligence
2) exclusive control of instrumentality
raises an inference of negligence
looks like regular negligence, but made a motion to the court
“only evidence was”– must be about elements about res ipsa
attractive nuisance (artifical condition on land/kids on it)
1) owner of land knows or should know children will trespass
2) condition poses unreasonable risk of harm
3) because of age and maturity do not realize the risk
4) utility of mantaining is slight compared to risk
5) owner fails to make it safe
defenses to negligence
pure comparative negligence
p is negligent as well, but it would be reduced to their fault
modern comparative
if he is 50% more responsible, he gets no recovery
contributory negligence
bar to recovery if negligent
exception to contributory negligence
last clear chance (could have swerved)
assumption of risk
knowledge and appreciate about the danger and keep doing it
joint and several liability
2 or more people caused an accident.
person can choose one or the other
defendant can sue codefendant for
contribution
vicarious liability
liable for negligent acts of employyes, as long as in the scope of employment
not intentional torts
independent contractor
will not pay for contractor’s act unless their work is abnormally dangerous or they are doing a nondelegable duty
indeminification
vicarious liability– if employer had to lay out a check, they can get it from the bus driver
