Negligence & Other Torts Flashcards
What is negligence?
The failure to exercise the care that a reasonable person in that situation would exercise and acting in a way that breaches the duty to prevent foreseeable risks of harm to others
The unreasonable breach of the duty must be the cause of plaintiff’s harm.
Conduct that falls below the minimum degree of ordinary care imposed by law to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm
Traditional approach: What would a reasonably prudent person have done under those circumstances?
Elements of Negligence:
Duty, Breach, Injury, Cause in Fact, Proximate Cause
Generally, there is a legal duty owed…
to all foreseeable persons who may be injured by the defendant’s failure to follow a reasonable standard of care.
Is there a duty to act affirmatively? (To Help Others)
No. Even if that failure to help turns out to be unreasonable.
If acting affirmatively, the ______ of the harm to others is enough to give rise to this general tort duty of reasonable care.
foreseeability
Are rescuers foreseeable plaintiffs in a negligence action?
Yes. A person who comes to the aid of another is a foreseeable plaintiff.
What is the firefighters rule?
Certain emergency personnel may be barred from recovering damages.
A person has no affirmative duty to voluntarily aid another. However, if a person does assume such a duty…
then they are liable for any injury caused by the failure to act within reasonable care in the performance of that aid or rescue.
A person has no affirmative duty to aid another unless…(3)
(1) They place another in danger, (2) They have the ability and actual authority to control another, (3) The defendant has a special relationship with the plaintiff. (eg. Business-patron or common carrier-passenger)
The negligence standard is an objective standard. We think about what a reasonably prudent person would have done. The defendant is presumed to have average mental abilities and knowledge. But what about if the defendant is blind or deathf? What if the defendant is drunk? What if the defendant is a child?
Blindness and deafness are worked into the objective standard. We say, what would a reasonably prudent blind person have done? We don’t expect blind people to be able to see. Also, we take drunkenness into account if the drunkenness was involuntary, but if it was voluntary, we do not.
If a child, we ask what would a reasonably prudent child of that age do? However, if the child is engaged in an adult activity, then we don’t take into account the child’s age.
What is cost benefit analysis?
Ask: Whether there is a reasonable, efficient, inexpensive, sensible precaution that should have been taken in light of the foreseeable risks?
Courts take into account the foreseeable likelihood of harm, the severity of the harm, and the burden.
How is custom relevant to the negligence standard?
It’s relevant evidence that someone has complied with what is customary.
How is someone’s profession relevant to the negligence standard?
Expected to exhibit the same skill and knowledge as another practitioner in the same community. Specialist may be held to a higher standard. (This is another way of using custom)
If someone is a physician is that relevant to the negligence standard?
Physicians are expected to exhibit the same skill and knowledge as another physician in the same or similar locality. The Modern trend is to use the national standard. A particular requirement for physicians is the requirement of informed consent.
Define: Informed Consent
Requirement that a physician explains the risks of a procedure to a patient. Not required if risks are commonly known, patient is unconscious, patient waives/refuses the information, patient is incompetent, or the patient would be harmed by disclosure (e.g., it would cause a heart attack)
What is negligence per se?
It is making reference to statutes or regulations to find a standard of care.
A criminal law or regulatory statute imposes a particular duty for the protection or benefit of others.
Statute will establish the standard of care.
Plaintiff must be in the class of people intended to be protected, the accident must be the type of harm that the statute was intended to protect against, and the harm was caused by a violation of that statute
Defenses to Negligence Per Se
(1) Compliance with the statute was impossible or (2) An emergency justified violation of the statute.
Defendant must show that complying with the statute would be even more dangerous than violating the statute.
Which of the following is NOT an element of negligence?
A
Breach of duty
B
Causation
C
Duty
D
Intentional Act
d
Which of the following statements is FALSE regarding the standard of care in a negligence case?
A
Intoxicated individuals are held to the same standards as sober individuals, unless their intoxication was involuntary.
B
You Selected: Generally, a specialist is held to the same standard as a general practitioner.
C
Evidence of custom is relevant evidence to determine the proper standard of care.
D
A person’s particular physical characteristic, such as blindness, is taken into account in determining the reasonableness of the defendant’s behavior.
B
Common Carriers and Innkeepers traditionally have a special duty of care. What is it?
Traditional Duty: A higher duty of care, consistent with the practical operation of the business. These classes of people could be held liable for slight negligence.
Modern Duty: However, modern law has kept the higher standard for common carriers, but not for innkeepers.
Modern Affirmative Duty: Courts have found that common carriers and innkeepers have an affirmative duty to act based on the special relationship with passengers and guests.
There is such a thing called a “guest statute” in some jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions have abandoned this. What is it?
It’s a limitation on liability running from the driver to guests in the drivers car to situations where the driver is more than negligent.
Traditional common law had weird rules for bailment. What are the rules now?
The duty of care depends on the circumstances in light of which conduct is measured by the standard of reasonable care.
In an emergency situation, what is the standard of care?
A person should take the level of care in an emergency that an ordinary person would take in such a situation. In other words, an emergency is just one of the circumstances considered.
(It is considered less if the defendant has given rise to the emergency.)
What is the duty of care owed to people who come onto land which is not their own and get hurt in traditional jurisdictions? In modern jurisdictions?
Traditional: The standard of care is different depending on the status of the person on the land. A person can be categorized as either an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser.
Modern: A duty of due care is owed to all invitees and licensees, but generally a different duty is owed to trespassers.
A trespasser is one to whom you owe the lowest duty of care under the traditional approach. What is this duty?
The possessor is obligated to refrain from willful or wanton misconduct, or reckless harm.
As to discovered or anticipated trespassers, there is a duty to warn or protect them from hidden dangers, but there is no duty to warn them from natural conditions or artificial conditions that don’t cause the risk of death.
As to undiscovered trespassers there is no duty at all.
What is the attractive nuisance doctrine?
Possessor of land may be liable to injuries to children trespassing on the land if:
i) An artificial condition exists in a place where the owner knows or has reason to know children are likely to trespass;
ii) The land possessor knows or has reason to know the artificial condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm;
iii) The children, because of their youth, do not discover or cannot appreciate the danger;
iv) The utility to the land possessor of maintaining the condition is slight compared to the risk of injury; and
v) The land possessor fails to exercise reasonable care.
What is a licensee?
Someone who the land possessor gives permission to come onto their property for their own purposes.
What duty is owed to licensees?
The land possessor has a duty to either correct or warn them of concealed dangers on your property. There is no duty to inspect for dangers, but land possessor must exercise reasonable care in conducting activities on the land.
A social guest is likely considered a licensee.
What is an invitee?
Someone who comes onto the land for your purpose, a mutual or joint purpose.
A customer is likely to be considered an invitee.
What duty of care do you owe to an invitee?
A duty of reasonable care.
NOTE It is a Non-delegable duty: Cannot avoid the duty by assigning care of your property to an independent contractor
As to landlords and tenants, when is the landlord liable?
When there is an injury in a common area, an injury from hidden dangers about which the landlord did not warn the tenant, injuries from premises that are leased for public use, or injuries from a hazard the landlord has agreed to repair.
As to landlords and tenants, when is the tenant liable?
As occupier of land, the tenant continues to be liable for injuries arising from conditions within the tenant’s control.
Land possessors are generally not liable for injuries resulting from natural conditions, with the exception of
trees in urban areas.
Land possessors are generally not liable for artificial conditions, however,
they must prevent unreasonable risk of harm to persons not on the premises.
Sellers of real property have a special duty to buyers. What is it?
Duty to disclose concealed and unreasonably dangerous conditions known to the seller.
This duty continues until the buyer has a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy the defect.
What are the elements of res ipsa loquitur
(1) The accident was of a kind that usually does not occur in the absence of negligence.
(2) The accident was caused by an agent or instrumentality within the defendant’s exclusive control; and
(3) The accident was not due to the plaintiff’s own fault.
What happens when res ipsa is applied to medical malpractice cases?
Sometimes in medical malpractice cases where there are a bunch of defendants, and all have had contact with the plaintiff, but the plaintiff cannot figure out who is negligent, sometimes courts will shift the burden to the defendants because it is unfair to think that an unconscious plaintiff is going to be able to figure it out. In that case, the defendants are all joint and severally liable unless they can exonerate themselves.
Which of the following statements regarding the standard of care for common carriers and innkeepers is FALSE?
A
Under the traditional rule, common carriers owed the highest duty of care consistent with the practical operation of the business.
B
Under the traditional rule, innkeepers could be held liable for slight negligence.
C
You Selected: A majority of courts today hold innkeepers to the highest duty of care standard.
D
A majority of courts today hold that innkeepers are liable only for ordinary negligence.
c
Which of the following describes a landowner’s duty to a licensee?
A
The normal duty of care
B
None, except to avoid “willful and wanton” disregard for safety
C
The duty to warn about known, hidden dangers
D
The highest duty of care
c
Regarding the attractive nuisance doctrine, which of the following statements is FALSE?
A
The doctrine applies only to children.
B
The doctrine applies only to artificial conditions.
C
You Selected: The doctrine applies regardless of whether the landowner knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass.
D
When the doctrine applies, the landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to the trespasser.
c
FILL IN THE BLANK. The traditional characterization of persons for purposes of determining a landowner’s duty toward them has, in some jurisdictions, been replaced by the ________.
A
duty to warn
B
You Selected: duty of reasonable care
C
duty to not intentionally hurt
D
duty of utmost care
b
Under which of the following circumstances is a tenant responsible for injuries associated with property?
A
Injuries in common areas
B
Injuries arising from conditions within the tenant’s control
C
Injuries from hidden dangers about which the landlord did not warn the tenant
D
Injuries arising from premises that are leased for public use
b
Which of the following statements regarding res ipsa loquitur is TRUE?
A
Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof as to issues of negligence to the defendant.
B
You Selected: Res ipsa loquitur requires the defendant to have had exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the harm.
C
Res ipsa loquitur requires the harm suffered by the plaintiff to be of the type that would have occurred despite any negligence.
D
Res ipsa loquitur may apply when the accident was due to the plaintiff’s fault.
b
I negligently damaged the brakes in your car. You are sitting in your driveway and adjusting the car radio before you are about to drive, when a giant meteorite crushes your car. Am I liable?
I am not liable because my negligence did not cause your harm.
How do you show the “Cause in Fact” prong of causation?
Plaintiff must show that the injury would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s negligence.
The “but-for” test can be problematic in the following circumstances:
There are several tortfeasors and it cannot be said that one particular defendant’s tortious conduct was necessary to cause the harm;
There are multiple potential sources of the harm and the plaintiff cannot prove which defendant caused the harm; or
There is a negligent misdiagnosis in a case where it is likely that the plaintiff would have died anyway.
When the tortious acts of two or more defendants are each a factual cause of one harm, then __________ applies.
joint and several liability
I negligently hang up my laundry on a stop sign on a road. Someone else negligently drives too fast. As a result, a person is hit. Who can the victim collect from?
Both acts were the causes of the harm. Thus, joint and several liability applies and the victim can collect in whole or in part from either of the two tortfeasors.
A difficult situation arises when there are multiple defendants, any of which could have been the sole cause of the harm. (think about the case of the bird hunters. The bird hunter got shot in the eye by bird shot. Either of two hunters was the sole cause, but the victim couldn’t prove which) Generally, a plaintiff cannot recover unless they know who caused the harm. However, in the situation where you have multiple negligent parties before the court, the court will often…
Shift the burden of proof to the defendants and force them to exonerate themselves or else face joint and several liability.
What happens in a situation where there are multiple tortfeasors acting together, and collectively they cause the plaintiff’s harm?
All defendants will be held jointly and severally liable although no one of them was absolutely necessary.
A couple people have a drag race and someone runs another person over. Are either negligent parties liable?
Both are liable because they were acting in concert negligently.
Some fraternity brothers throw a piano off the roof of the frat house as a prank. An injury occurs and those fraternity brothers are all liable because they acted __.
in concert.
What is the loss of chance doctrine?
A patient has a 20% chance of survival. The doctor negligently treats that patient by misdiagnosing the patient’s condition. The patient now has a 10% chance of survival. Ordinarily, the patient would lose if the normal causation rules applied. Under the loss of recovery rule, the patient’s chance of recovery must be less than 50% even prior to the negligent misdiagnosis.
But if a physician negligently reduces the plaintiff’s chance of survival, then that plaintiff can recover for that harm.
The proper measure of damages in a lost chance case is
the percentage of your damages that correspond to the likelihood that the defendant’s negligence caused your harm.