Negligence Flashcards
Learned Hand Formula
B<PL
Burden of prevention
Probability of injury
L-gravity of resulting harm
Mental/physical disabilities
actor’s mental/ emotional disability not considered in determining whether conduct is negligent,
physical disabilities are taken into account
Child negligence
if conduct doesn’t conform to reasonable child with same intelligence, age, and circumstances
- not apply in dangerous activities
x not negligence
MIN -> rule of 7
Professional Duty of care
reasonableness of other professionals under circumstances
two reasonable choices?
- not liable if choose wrong one
Adult duty of care
Not taken into account
- mental illness
- inferior knowledge
Taken into account
- physical disability
- superior knowledge
Exceptions to no duty to aid
- D creates Peril
D voluntarily undertakes act AND
- negligence
- P relies on Ds actions to peril
- D keeps others from helping
Spousal Duty
Must act when
- actual knowledge OR special reason to know
- particular knowledge of who is being abused
- duty of care to take reasonable steps
Rescue Doctrine
D is negligent to V if negligence caused peril or appearance of peril to victim
- Peril is imminent
- reasonable person conclude peril existed
Special relationships to 3rd party
acts that need to be controlled OR
to victim to protect from harm of 3rd party
Therapists
special relationship with patient
relationship to foreseeable victim of harmful conduct
- reasonable care to protect others from dangers of illness
Negligence per se
1) statute creates duty
2) statute designed to protect against particular conduct
3) V is in class of those intended to be protected
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Elements:
- incident wouldn’t happen without negligence
- cause of injury in Ds exclusive control
- injury not caused by P
“but-for” cause
would incident occur “but-for” Ds acts?
Concurrent causes
2 or more independent negligent acts combine to cause individual injury
- neither alone would’ve caused harm
- each tortfeasor liable
Substantial factor/ Multiple sufficient causes
2 or more independent negligent acts combine
- either act would’ve caused harm
Alternate Liability
Multiple Ds
- P proves breach
- Burden shifts -> D must prove not cause harm
Market-Share Liability
- liability limited to market share of each D
- Theory -> pay roughly amount that represents contributed harm
P must prove
- all named Ds are tortfeasors
- products IDENTICAL
- can’t ID which D caused harm
- Ds represent substantial share of market
Reasonably foreseeable consequences
limited to those harms that result from risks taken
D need to only foresee general type of harm
- exact manner/ extent NO foreseeability
Exceptions to Reasonable foreseeable consequences
D creates peril/ risk
D voluntarily undertakes act AND
- act negligent
- P relies on Ds acts OR
- D keeps others from helping P
Superseding Causes
intervening act
- breaks causal b/w Ds breach and Ps injury
- must be reasonably foreseeable consequence of Ds conduct
intervening causes
intervening negligence of 3rd party
- intentional acts
- criminal acts
- acts by P
- acts of god
Economic Loss Rule
no duty to P that suffer pure economic loss due to negligence (MAJ rule)
Zone of Danger (near miss)
1) danger of physical contact
2) reasonably fears for own safety
3) suffers severe emotional distress because of that fear
Bystander (Dillon Rule)
recover for one who:
- closely related to victim
- present at scene
- observes event and injury