Negligence

Question 1

Negligence Duty

Answer 1

A general duty of care to act as a reasonable person is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs.
If the defendant’s conduct creates an unreasonable risk of injury to persons in the position of the plaintiff, then the duty extends to the plaintiff.
Zone of danger: cardozo; andrews: all
Police officers/firefighters: when they are injured on the job the scope of duty is limited based on public policy or assumption of risk grounds. (special risk inherent in law enforcement activity limits duty)

Question 2

Standard of Care

Answer 2

The general standard of care is that of a reasonable, ordinary, prudent person under the same or similar circumstances

Question 3

Actual Causation

Answer 3

The defendant’s conduct is the actual cause of the P’s injury if the injury would not have occurred but for the D’s conduct

Question 4

Proximate Causation

Answer 4

The general rule for proximate cause is that the defendant is liable for all harmful results that are the normal incidents of his conduct and within the increased risks of his conduct.
In other words, if the defendant’s conduct causes an increase in risk that a harmful result will occur, than his conduct is the proximate cause of the injury.

Intervening acts: if it is foreseeable that his act combined with another act would cause this result, than D is liable.

Question 5

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Answer 5

A duty to avoid negligent infliction of emotional distress may be breached when the D creates a foreseeable risk of PHYSICAL injury to the P.
The P must show that
1. In zone of danger
2. suffered physical symptoms from the emotional distress

Bystander who is not within the zone of danger may recover for injuries, suffered from seeing injury to another, so long as

1. the P and the person are closely related
2. The P was present at scene of injury
3. P personally observed/perceived event.