Negligence Flashcards
Negligence Basics
- Negligence is analyzed under an objective standard by comparing D’s actions to a reasonable person under similar circumstances
- I.e., negligence law assesses D’s behavior based on the common judgment of a collective people
- Assess D’s behavior given the circumstances under which she acted
Negligence Elements
- Duty of care
- Breach of duty
- Causation
- Damages
Duty of Care (Negligence)
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 (to all foreseeable plaintiffs in the zone of danger)
- Exception - in certain situations, an alternative standard of care applies
- Children
- Common carriers & innkeepers
- Custom or usage in an industry
- Professionals
- Statutory standard of care
- Owners/occupiers of land
- Exception - in certain situations, an alternative standard of care applies
Default standard of care
Reasonably prudent person (RPP)
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
What is a “Good Samaritan” law
Statute exempting licensed doctors, nurses, etc., who voluntarily and gratuitously render emergency treatment, from liability for ordinary negligence
Who are foreseeable victims?
- Those within the zone of danger
- Zone of danger is the area around D’s activities in which a P could foreseeably be injured
- Viable fetus are victims: Prenatal injury
- Intended economic beneficiaries: a duty of care is owed to third-party beneficiaries if their harm is foreseeable (clients that are not clients but benefit)
Rescuer’s exception (foreseeability)
An exception for the unforeseeable victims for duty of care
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
Specialized standards of care
- Children: held to the standard of care of a like child of similar age, education, intelligence, and experience (subjective test) (Children under seven are not held liable)
- Common carriers & 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
- Professionals: expected to act with the care of an average member of the profession in good standing in similar communities
- Statutory standard of care
- Owners/occupiers of land
Statutory Standards of care
An existing statute may establ ish a duty of care, in which case the specific duty imposed by the statute will replace the general common law duty of due care
Statutory Standard of Care Requirements
statutory standard of care will apply where:
- Statute provides a criminal penalty;
- Standard of conduct is clearly defined in the statute;
- P is within the class of people statute is designed to protect; and
- Statute is designed to protect against the type of harm P suffered
When Statutory standard of care does not apply?
May be excused if:
- (i) compliance with the statute would cause more danger than a violation (e.g., a defendant drives onto the wrong side of the road to avoid hitting children who dart into his path), or
- (ii) compliance with the statute would be beyond the defendant’s control (e.g., a blind pedestrian crosses against a light).
What are the views regarding the effects of a violation of a statutory standard of case?
Majority: Creates a Negligence Per Se. The P will stablish that a conclusive presumption of duty and breach of duty by showing a violation of the statute
Negligence Per Se
violation of the statute means P must only prove causation, not breach of duty
- Under majority rule, violation operates as a conclusive presumption of duty and breach of that duty
- Compliance does not automatically clear D of liability
Duty of care of owners (and occupiers) 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
- Anticipated trespassers
- Attractive nuisance doctrine for child trespassers
Unknown/undiscovered vs anticipated trespassers
- Unknown/undiscovered: No duty owed
- Anticipated trespassers:
- where owner has reason to believe of trespassers on her land
- Duties:
- 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
Attractive nuisance doctrine for child trespassers, overview and requirements
Owner must take reasonable care to eliminate dangers on her property or protect children from those dangers if:
- She is aware or should be aware of a dangerous condition (natural or artificial) on her property;
- She knows or should know children are in the vicinity;
- The condition is likely to cause injury if encountered (i.e. its dangerous because of the child’s inability to appreciate the risk); and
- The magnitude of the risk outweighs its utility or the expense of remedying it
Licensees & invitees
-
Licensee - one who enters land with owner’s permission for his own purpose or business ( i.e., not for landowner’s benefit)
- E.g., relatives, friends, social guests
- No duty to inspect
-
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
- Duty to inspect
