Negligence - Breach of Duty - Proving and Evaluating Conduct Flashcards
Proving and Evaluating Conduct
Negligence must be more probable than not
Santiago v. First Student Inc.
Must Show Breach
A plaintiff must present evidence of a defendant’s misconduct in a negligence case. Plaintiff sued a school bus driver for an injury caused by an old accident, but Plaintiff could not prove any negligent conduct.
Upchurch v. Rotenberry
A court cannot reverse a jury verdict when there is contradictory evidence and a reasonable person could come to the conclusion the jury came to. Plaintiff’s mother sued for wrongful death and jury ruled for defendant. Court of appeals wouldn’t rule against a jury verdict.
Problems with Determining Fault
- Injuries are caused by tiny miscalculations that are hard actor to remember precisely and hard for the jury to understand after the fact
- Obtaining facts for judging fault relies on accurate testimony and witnesses are not always accurate about tiny details
Credibility of Witnesses
The jury is almost always instructed to judge the credibility of witnesses through their demeanor and other factors
Directed Verdict
Some courts allow a directed verdict for the party with the burden of proof if the plaintiff’s testimony is uncontradicted, clear and self-consistent
Circumstantial Evidence
Evidence of one fact that allows people to infer another fact. This is normally the most important evidence in torts and generally is weighed as much as direct evidence.
Non-Expert Witness Testimony
Non-expert witnesses are only allowed to state facts, not opinions. But they may provide estimations, like speed, distance and intoxication
Expert Witnesses and Problems with Them
Expert witnesses may provide expert opinions or conclusions if it will help the jury, but there are some problems with expert testimony
Experts might offer contradicting testimony and juries have little basis for resolving the contradiction
A witness might be an expert but still offer only speculation
An expert might overwhelm the jury
Thoma v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.
Plaintiff slipped and fell on liquid. Summary judgment is not proper when the facts allow for many inferences. The case must go to the jury. Plaintiff must prove defendant caused the dangerous condition, knew about it or had constrictive knowledge of it to prove negligence.
Ways to Prove Negligence in Slip and Fall Cases
- Defendant caused the hazard and did nothing to remedy it
- Defendant knew or should have known about the hazard but didn’t remedy it in a reasonable amount of time.
- The defendant’s mode of business made the hazard foreseeable that others would cause a hazard and the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to discover and remove the hazard
Ways to Show the Defendant Should have Discovered the Problem
Sufficient time had elapsed
Similar accidents happened before
