Negligence Step 0

Question 1

Elements of Negligence

Answer 1

Duty + Breach + Causation + Damages

Question 2

You are liable for negligence only if (generally) ..

Answer 2

Failed to take adequate level of care

Question 3

Consequentialist theory for negligence

Answer 3

Incentivize due care while protecting against faultless liability

Question 4

Corrective Justice view of negligence

Answer 4

Only shift costs from D to P when D did something wrong

Question 5

Question for duty?

Answer 5

Did D have duty of care in this scenario/what does relevant negligence standard ask of D

Question 6

The standard of reasonableness for negligence is ..

Answer 6

Objective

Question 7

Vaughan established

Answer 7

Objective reasonableness

Question 8

Vaughan reasoning

Answer 8

Subjective would be so vague not rule at all, even if guy wasn’t smart still should’ve known what he was doing

Question 9

Arguments for Objective Standard

Answer 9

Minimize fraud, incentivizes D to take precautions, even if harder for some should still encourage them to do so

Question 10

Arguments for Subjective reasonableness

Answer 10

People without fault still blamed, won’t provide additional deterrence, not fair to make them work extra hard to comply

Question 11

Unless a child, a person is held the standard of ..

Answer 11

Reasonable man under like circumstances

Question 12

Trait 1 of RP

Answer 12

Fictions person never negligence (not jury)

Question 13

Trait 2 of RP

Answer 13

Reasonably considerate of others, doesn’t look primary to own advantage but also doesn’t disregard own interests

Question 14

Trait 3 of RP

Answer 14

Takes some risks

Question 15

Trait 4 of RP

Answer 15

Normal intelligence

Question 16

Trait 5 of RP

Answer 16

Normal perception, memory and minimal standard of knowledge

Question 17

Trait 6 of RP

Answer 17

Any additional skill and knowledge possessed by actor (can raise bar but not lower it)

Question 18

Trait 7 of RP

Answer 18

Physical attributes of the actor

Question 19

Smith reasoning 1

Answer 19

Common knowledge obstructions on sidewalks

Question 20

Smith reasoning 2

Answer 20

A reasonable person in P position bound to take precautions that compensate for lack of vision (contributory negligence)

Question 21

Smith reasoning 3

Answer 21

Did not use cane, seeing eye dog or companion, no effort so no jury to determine if reasonable

Question 22

Critique of Smith

Answer 22

P not totally blind and using other options, Jury should decide if reasonable

Question 23

Davis holding

Answer 23

If effort made, jury decides. if physical disability, negligent only if does not conform to that of reasonably careful person with same disability

Question 24

Davis reasoning

Answer 24

Blind person won’t discover everything seeing person would, just need to see reasonable effort to compensate

Question 25

Hypo: hearing impaired biker when child jumped in front of bike

Answer 25

Not automatic liability, reason to believe children would be there, any precautions can take

Question 26

Children are held to standard of reasonable person of ..

Answer 26

Like age, intelligence and experience under like circumstances

Question 27

Policy for holding children liable for negligence

Answer 27

Motivate parents to monitor, helps compensate victim

Question 28

Dellwo holding

Answer 28

Child operating car, plane or powerboat same standard as adults

Question 29

Dellwo policy

Answer 29

Don’t know if children behind wheel until very close so can’t take extra precaution, people entitled to know if interacting with someone with different standard of care

Question 30

Restatement approach to child standard

Answer 30

Adult standard when child engaging in dangerous activity normally undertaken by adults

Question 31

Difference between Dellwo and Restatement Approaches

Answer 31

Restatement much broader

Question 32

Breunig Approach to Mental Illness Standard

Answer 32

No exception to mental illness to RP standard except when sudden and unforeseeable mental impairment

Question 33

Why no exception in Breunig

Answer 33

May be foreseeable due to prior mental illness diagnosis

Question 34

Restatement approach to mental illness

Answer 34

If sudden physical incapacitation or loss of consciousness, only exception if not reasonably foreseeable

Question 35

Would Breunig be exception under Restatement approach

Answer 35

No, foreseeable and hallucination not physical

Question 36

Under restatement approach, mental or emotional disability not considered unless …

Answer 36

Actor is a child

Question 37

Policy behind Rd approach to mental illness

Answer 37

Want to incentivize precautions, also have to draw a line somewhere (all the way to depression?)

Question 38

Gould holding

Answer 38

One institutionalized for mental illness and without capacity to control own conduct not liable for injuries to caretakers

Question 39

Policy behind Gould

Answer 39

Caretakers cheapest cost avoiders, AR

Question 40

Exceptions to normal RP standard

Answer 40

Child not doing adult activity, physical disability, sudden and unforeseeable mental/physical impairment, mental illness institutionalize and without capacity to caretaker