Negligence Flashcards
Primia Face case for negligence
1) duty
2) breach of duty
3) actual and proximate causation and
4) damages
what are the steps for duty to determine?
1) was it a foreseeable P (almost always)
2) what is the standard of care
who are duties of care owed to?
only foreseeable P’s.
- Most likely foreseeable
Foreseeable P’s as matter of law
1) rescuers
2) viable fetuses
who is an unforeseeable P
people not within the FORESEEABLE ZONE OF DANGER.
-measured at time of the negligent conduct
Standards of care analyze
1) determine what std applies
2) determine what the std is
what is the reasonable person std?
reasonable person under the circumstances
Does IQ go into reasonable person std
NO
Does defendants PHYSICAL characteristics taken into consideration?
YES.
What is the disabled defendant?
If D is AWARE of their disability, they are supposed to act as a REASONABLE PERSON WITH it would act
-Ex: blind person not drive
What is the children standard?
Child of LIKE age, intelligence and experience
-subjective standard
What is the X/C for the children standard?
where the child is engaged in an ADULT ACTIVITY, the reasonable person std applies.
What is the professional standard for a professional?
A reasonable professional in the same or similar communities
What is the standard of care for a specialist?
a reasonable specialist in national community.
What is the standard of care for Common Carriers and Innkeepers?
liability for even SLIGHT negligence
- P MUST be a passenger or guest for slight negligence to apply though
What are the steps for Owner-Occupier Standards?
1) make sure D is owner/occupier or in “privity” of one
2) Determine if injury occurred on or off land
3) assuming it is ON the land
- Undiscovered trespasser has no duty.
Off-land exam tip
anytime you see an alternative that assigns a status to an injured party, that happened off land, get rid of
(ex: trespasser b/c it occurred off land)
The owner/occupier status for activities
ordinary negligence and P’s status is irrelevant , std is reasonable persons std
Dangerous condition for status for owner/occupier
P’s status is relevant for dangerous conditions
duty owed to DISCOVERED trespasser
1) ARTIFICIAL condition (something a person has put on land that nature would not) (ex: fence, wall)
2) involving a risk of SERIOUS injury
3) O/O KNOWS OF
- anticipated trespasser fails under this
how are anticipated trespassers treated?
like known trespasser
duty owned to licensee
1) dangerous conditions
2) O/O KNOWS OF
- no words of limitation, can be natural, artificial
who is a licensee
on land for their own benefit and not owners benefit.
- including social guests
what is a social guest
a licensee
who is an invitee
on the land for the O/O purpose
ex: business, public invitees
standard of care for invitees
1) dangerous conditions
2) O/O knows of OR
3) should have known of
- o/o must make REASONABLE INSPECTION of the property for the benefit of the invitees
What does Illinois do for distinctions of o/o
all treated the same, reasonable person std for all
How can an O/O discharge their duty?
duties may be discharged either by
1) warning of OR
2) making safe the dangerous condition
- on bar will be warning otherwise person was not injured.
2) very obvious dangerous conditions: no liability
Does an O/O have to make warning or make safe a dangerous condition for a VERY OBVIOUS dangerous condition?
NO
Attractive nuisance doctrine
does a child need to be able to show that the dangerous condition attracted them on the land?
NO. BS. do not need to be attracted onto land because of it.
Test of statutorily standard to apply
1) P must fall w/i PROTECTED CLASS and
2) statute must be DESIGNED TO PREVENT THIS KIND OF INJURY
what happens if stautorily standard does not apply?
just use the reasonable person std.
effects of non-compliance with an applicable statute
negligence per se
what does negligence per se mean?
there is a CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION of negligent conduct on the defendant’s part.
-duty and breach established
what does negligence per se NOT mean?
does not mean the D is liable for negligence. still must prove actual and proximate causation and damages.
what are the X/C for statutory standard to apply
1) Compliance would be MORE DANGEROUS
2) compliance would be IMPOSSIBLE
Effect of compliance with an applicable statute
although a statutory std can be introduced by D, this WILL NOT necessarily establish due care IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE MORE
- Ex: driving 45mph which is speed limit but during a blizzard
- Defendants argument
negligent infliction of emotional distress
1) negligence
2) extreme out outrageous conduct
3) PHYSICAL damages
4) P must be within “TARGET ZONE” of D’s negligent conduct
contrast IIED and Negligent Infliction of emotional distress
IIED does not require PHYSICAL damage like negligent does
when can P recover under negligent infliction of emotional distress?
when P is
1) close relative and
2) perceived the injury
What is the general rule for duty to act
Generally there is NO affirmative duty to act
X/C for no affirmative duty to act
1) Special Relationship b/w parties
2) Duty to control 3rd parties
3) assumption of duty to act by acting
4) P’s peril due to D’s conduct
Special Relationship b/w parties duty
family members, employer/ employee, common carriers, innkeepers have a duty to act.
duty to control 3rd persons
1) right and ABILITY to control
( employers/employees, parents/kids)
2) know or SHOULD have known its required.
how to determine if there has been a breach?
by w/e or not the D has met the std of care.
When does “res ipsa loquitur” apply?
when P does NOT have enough solid evidence to establish negligent conduct on D’s part.
the probability inference test for “res ipsa loquitur”
1) inference of negligence: this usually would not happen unless someone was negligent
2) Negligence attributable to D: showing the instrumentality causing the injury was w/i the defendants exclusive control
3) P not contributory negligent
What does it mean if p established res ipsa loqcuitor
P just survives directed verdict. Does not win. Up to Jury to accept or reject the inference.
What are the two sub parts for causation
1) actual causation
2) proximate causation
What are the 3 tests to determine actual causation
1) but for test (most basic and used)
2) substantial factor test
3) alternative causes test
what is the but for test
“but for” the defendants negligent conduct, would P’s injury occur?
Generally what happens when but for test and is negative?
usually no liability for D, but must go on to
2) substantial factor test or
3) Alternative causes test
what is the substantial factor test for actual causation
D’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing injury
when do you use the substantial factor test
when 2 or more people caused the injury