Negligence Flashcards
How does “negligence” allow a plaintiff to win damages?
by showing that even though the defendant did not mean to do anything that the law prohibits, the defendant failed to act as carefully as the law requires.
What is Duty?
“Duty” to other persons to act in a reasonable way as to be careful not to injure others.
Define reasonable person
A person who exercises the degree of attention, knowledge, intelligence, and judgment that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others interests. A legal standard.
Someone who exercises the degree of attention, knowledge, intelligence and judgment that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and others interest is known as a…
Reasonable Person
What is the exception to the standard definition of a “reasonable person?”
The “Sudden Emergency Doctrine”
What three points must be met to qualify under the reasonable person exception of the Sudden Emergency Doctrine?
- You weren’t negligent prior to the sudden emergency
- Comes about suddenly, without warning
- No time for reflection
Under the Standards of Care, there are three additional standards outside of the expectation of the “reasonable person.” Name the other three
- Superior Knowledge
- Physical Disability
- Mental Disability
If one falls into the class of Superior Knowledge in the Standards of Care, how are they held?
Held to a higher standard based on that superior knowledge.
What is the standard of care for someone with a physical disability?
The individual is held to the standard of acting as a reasonable person with a similar disability.
Typically, how does a Mental Disability affect the reasonable person standard?
Generally speaking, mental illness does not affect the reasonable person standard. The individual would still be held to the same regard as someone who does not have mental illness.
What exception to the reasonable person standard IS made for mental disability
Sudden onset.
What is the standard of care for a minor?
reasonable child of like age, intelligence, and experience.
Under what age would a child have to be so that they are not liable for negligence according to the Standard of Care for a minor?
Under the age of 7 (UNDER only. At age 7 a child IS liable).
If over the age of 7 a child can still fall under an Exception to the Standard of Care they are held to. What exception to negligence may they be granted?
Over the age of 7, a child can be negligent, but to a lesser extent than an adult.
What is the third Exception to the Minor’s Standard of Care? The first is with regard to children under 7 years of age. The second is regarding the level of negligence a child is held at if they are over 7. The third exception is…
Inherently Dangerous activities/adult activity
WISCONSIN goes by the Adult Activity Standard (with regard to the exception to minor’s standard of care). What is the adult activity standard.
The child engaged in an activity which is typically engaged in only by adults and for which adult qualification or a license is required.
Under the Adult Activity Standard followed by WI, in such a situation, the child will be held to the standard of…
adult skill, knowledge, and competence, and no allowance will be made for the child’s immaturity.
In WISCONSIN, does license matter with regard to the adult activity standard for an exception to a minor’s standard of care?
NO. In Wisconsin, if a license is needed, the child will be held to the standard of adult skill.
What does the term “Statutory” mean with regard to the Standard of Care in the subject of negligence?
There may be statutes that absolve a person of a negligence suit but does not keep them from being charged with recklessness.
What are the two opinions on duty as they relate to Palsgraf?
- Cardozo
2. Andrews
By Cardozo, what duty is owed?
Owe a duty to foreseeable victims against foreseeable harm.
By Andrews, what duty is owed?
Owe a duty to protect ALL others by using reasonable care.
What approach to duty does Wisconsin take?
WI uses the Andrews approach.
(under Palsgraf) What is the definition of “Foreseeable Harm?”
A reasonable person would be able to predict or expect the ultimately harmful result of their actions.Under negligence law, the duty to act reasonably to avoid foreseeable risks of physical injury extends to any person.