Negligence Flashcards
Neligence basics
Negligence is analyzed under an objective standard by comparing D’s actions to a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances
Negligence-Elements
1) Duty of care
-D has a duty to conform to a specific standard of care
-Reasonably prudent person: D’s duty is to behave like a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances presented
-Exception: in certain situations, an alternative standard of care applies
2) Breach of duty
3) Causation
-Actual cause and proximate cause
-Note: the MBE may refer to actual cause as “cause in fact” or “factual cause” and proximate cause as “legal cause”
4) Damages
Duty of care
D owes a duty of care to behave like a reasonably prudent person to all foreseeable plaintiffs in the zone of danger
Default standard of care
- Reasonable prudent person
- D’s duty is to behave like a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances
- RPP is considered to be someone with D’s physical characteristics, but with the knowledge and mental capacity of an ordinary person
Foreseeable victims
Those within the zone of danger
* Zone of danger = the area around D’s activities in which a P could foreseeably be injured
* Rescuer’s exception: if D puts himself or another in danger and a third person attempts to rescue, D can be held liable for the rescuer’s injuries, even if unforeseeable
-Does not apply to emergency personnel (e.g. firefighters or police) if their injury results from a risk inherent to the job
* Prenatal injury: a duty of care is owed to a viable fetus
Children
Held to the standard of care of a reasonable child of similar age, education, intelligence, and experience
* Generally, young children (i.e. under 5) lack capacity to be held negligent
* Adult activities exception: children engaged in adult activities must conform to an adult standard of care in that activity
Common carriers and innkeepers
Held to an “utmost care” standard
-Liable for even slight negligence to passengers or guests
Custom or usage in an industry
Can be used to establish a standard of care, but failure to adhere does not automatically give rise to a breach of duty, nor does compliance with an industry custom automatically establish a lack of negligence
Statutory standards of care and negligence per se
An existing statute may establish a standard of care, in which case the statutory standard imposed by the statute will replace the general common law standard of reasonable care
Statutory standard of care-Requirements
Will apply if statute satisfies 3 criteria:
1) P must prove that harm suffered is the type the statute was meant to prevent
2) P is in class of victims statute was meant to protect; and
3) Statute applies a standard of conduct: says what to do or not to do
Statutory standard of care does not apply if
a) Compliance is more dangerous than non-compliance, or
b) Compliance is impossible under the circumstances
Negligence per se
Violation of the statute means P must only prove causation, not breach of duty
* Under majority rule, that violation of the statute establishes a conclusive presumption of duty and breach of duty
* Compliance does not automatically clear D of liability
Duty of care for owners and occupiers of land to trespassers
Owners and occupiers of land may have a duty of care for anticipated trespassers and child trespassers
-Same standard of care applies for owners and occupiers
Unknown or undiscovered trespassers
No duty owed
Anticipated trespassers
Where owner has reason to believe of trespassers on her land
* Activities: owners has a duty of reasonable care in carrying out activities on her property
* Dangerous conditions: owner has duty to make safe or warn of any known, concealed, man made hazards
-Note: this is rare, look for spring guns traps, etc.
Attractive nuisance doctrine for child trespassers
Owner must take reasonable care to eliminate dangers on her property or protect children from those dangers if:
1) She is aware or should be aware of a dangerous condition on her property
2) She knows or should know children are in the vicinity
3) The condition is likely to cause injury given a child’s inability to appreciate the risk; and
4) The magnitude of the risk otweighs its utility or the expense of remedying it
Licensee
One who enters land with owner’s permission for his own purpose or business (i.e. not landowner’s benefit)
-E.g. relative, friends, social guests
Invitee
One who enters land held open to the public or who enters with owner’s permission to confer a commercial benefit
-E.g. store patron, concert goer
Licensee and invitee: Duty of care owed
- Activities carried out on property: reasonable care
- Known dangerous conditions: duty to warn or make safe
- Duty to inspect: n/a for licensees
-Invitees: owners have duty to conduct a reasonable inspection for non obvious dangers and make them safe - May be non-delegable: businesses that hold property open to the public have a non delegable duty to keep premises safe for customers
Licensee and invitee:Scope of duty
Limited by scope of the invitation/license
* Owner’s duty extends only to those areas where one is an invitee or licensee (e.g. store owner does not owe duty of care in employees-only area)
Note: police and firefighters are considered licensees, but cannot recover for injuries suffered in the line of duty if the injury results from a risk inherent in the job
Breach of duty
D breaches his duty when his conduct falls short of the standard of care owed under the circumstances
D breached the applicable standard of care
Includes:
* Reasonable person standard
* Negligence per se: violation of a relevant statute
* Specialized standard of care
* Custom or usage in an industry: not an automatic breach, but may be relevant
Res ipsa loquitur
The very occurrence of the accident causing P’s injuries suggests negligent conduct
* Arises if facts cannot establish breach of duty because circumstances surrounding the event are unknown to P
Res ipsa-Requirements
1) Inference of negligence: the harm would not normally occur absent negligence
2) Attributable to D: this type of harm normall results from negligence by one in D’s position
-Often satisfied by showing that the injury causing instrument was in D’s exclusive control
3) Injury was not attributable to P
