Negligence Flashcards
Negligence: 5 Elements.
- Duty to PLNTF owed by DEF
- Breach of duty via negligence
- Actual cause of this harm
- “proximate cause” of this harm: within the scope of liability
- PLNTF suffered actual harm
Negligence Per Se: 5 Elements [O’Guin]
- Statute or Regulation clearly defines a standard of care (duty and breach)
- Doesn’t otherwise establish civil liability
- Statute intended to prevent specific type of harm
- PLNTF must be in the class of people statute was intended to protect
- Violation must have been proximate cause of injury
5 Excuses for violation of a statute as a defense in Negligence Per Se
- Incapacity reasonably cause violation
- Compliance reasonably attempted
- Neither knew nor should have known duty
- Emergency not caused by DEF was reason for the violation
- Compliance involved greater risk
Structured Weighing of Risks and Costs
Owner’s Duty: 3 FACTORS
- Probability of danger combined with
- Injury size must be greater than
- Burden.
Liability depends on: Probability x Injury > Burden. B<PI
Proximate Cause:
Plaintiff can only be held liable for damages caused by his negligence if it is within the scope of liability for his negligence.
Rescue Doctrine:
Rescuers are automatically foreseeable as a matter of law, and therefore harm to them is recoverable
Violation of Statute and Proximate Cause:
Injury must be caused by a hazard that it was the purpose of the statute to prevent.
RSTMT 2 442B: Forseeability of Tortious or Criminal Acts
Tortious or criminal acts may be foreseeable, and therefore within the scope of liability even if they are intervening acts.
[Ruiz v. Victory Properties]”Kid throws concrete from 3rd floor onto another kid.”
As long as harm of the general nature is that which occurred is foreseeable there is a basis for liability, even if the actual harm is bizarre.
[Hammerstein v. Jean Development]”No fire alarm, causes… foot gangrene?”
A faulty fire system is a risk in general to guests, causing the initial harm to the foot, regardless of the specific extent of the injury later.
[Marcus v. Staubs]”Drunk driving teen car thief kills passengers.”
A tortfeasor whose negligence is a substantial factor is not relieved from liability by intervening acts of a third party if those acts were reasonably foreseeable.
[Collins v. Scenic Homes]”Arsonist sets fire to illegally constructed apartment.”
Criminal acts may be foreseeable, and so within the scope of liability.
In this case, arson of an apartment that didn’t conform to fire code, regardless of the arson happening 20 years after the negligent action..
[Delaney v. Reynolds]”Suicidal woman sues boyfriend for owning gun.”
Traditional Rules: PLNTF intentionally harming themselves is an intervening cause
Some Jurisdictions: Mental illness, uncontrollable impulse, or special relationship can bypass this.
[Deridiarian v. Felix]”P thrown into air by car, boiled, set on fire, survived.”
Plntf need not demonstrate that the precise manner of the accident or the extent of injuries was forseeable.
[Torres v. JAI]”Is bar liable for drunk driver who already reached home?”
If the likelihood that 3rd party may act in a certain way is the hazard that makes the actor negligent, then whether the act is innocent, negligent, intentionally tortious, or criminal doesn’t protect the actor from liability.
