Torts Flashcards
What are the five elements of a negligence claim?
- Cause in fact
- Duty
- Scope of Duty
- Breach
- Injury
What is negligence?
Failure to exercise due care as to …
Cause In Fact
But for negligence
Substantial Factor
But for Negligence Analysis
A negligent act was the “but for” cause of an injury if the injury would not have occurred without negligence.
Substantial Factor Test for Negligence
Recognizing the problem of proof in many cases, Louisiana courts use the “substantial factor” test as an alternative, finding that the causation element is met where the negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury.
Duty Element of Negligence
The type of care an ordinary, reasonably prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances.
Unique standards of Proof for Duty
Negligence per se,
Res Ipsa Loqutor
Custom
Scope of Duty
The scope of the duty - scope of the risk analysis asks whether the right that materialized was within the reasonable scope of risks created by the negligent conduct.
When is a risk within the scope of the duty?
When it is reasonably foreseeable result of the negligent conduct.
Breach of Duty
Asks whether the defendant created an unreasonable risk of harm. In most cases, this is a simple question of whether Defendant behaved as a reasonable person or not.
What is the risk-utility balancing test?
The Louisiana Supreme Court has utilized a risk-utility balancing test to determine whether the expected loss exceeds the burden or cost of a precaution.
What is the risk-utility balancing test?
B < LP
Where B = Burden
L = actual Loss
P = probability of the loss
Injury
Usually, injury is fairly obvious. A broken arm, a wrecked car, etc.
Damages P can recover
Physical injuries
Lost income including potential and actual income
Pain and Suffering: while speculative, this must be determined by a fact finder. In order to maximize recovery, P should have an expert witness.
Family can recover
Lost consortium damages
What are lost consortium damages?
Damages are available to any party who would have a wrongful death claim if the injured party had died.
Lost consortium damages include lost love, companionship and affection, and recovery for the value of household services that must now be obtained on the private market.
The lost consortium claims are dependent upon the negligence claims and will be reduced or eliminated by any defenses alleged by the Defendant including comparative fault.
What are the categories of beneficiaries for lost consortium?
Spouses and children are the first category of beneficiaries for the wrongful death statute and thus, are proper parties for a lost consortium claim.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
A third-party claimant must show:
- that he or she viewed the accident or came upon the scene shortly thereafter.
- That the direct victim suffered the type of harm that makes it reasonably foreseeable that the person in the plaintiff’s position would suffer mental anguish.
- That the resulting emotional distress is severe and debilitating
- That he or she is within the statutorily-defined relationship with the direct victim.
Allocation of Fault
The factfinder must allocate a percentage of fault to all responsible parties. Louisiana applies a “pure” comparative fault meaning that each party is responsible only for the allotted share of fault, regardless of whether they are present in the suit.
What factors will the court consider when allocating fault? Watson Factors
- Whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger.
- How great the risk created by the conduct.
- The significance of what was sought by the conduct
- The capacities of the actors, whether superior or inferior
- Extenuating circumstances which might require the actor to proceed in haste without proper thought
- The relationship between the fault/negligent conduct and the harm to the plaintiff
Vicarious Liability: Employers are responsible for the ats of their employees when:
- There is an employment relationship
- The employee was acting in the course and scope of the employment relationship.
- The employee was at fault.
What are the factors when considering allocation of fault?
Great a risk
Relationship between fault/negligent conduct and harm
Awareness or inadvertence to the danger
Capacities of actor, whether superior or inferior
Extenuating circumstances, including haste
Significance of what was sought
Slip and Fall Statute
- Merchant
- Condition Presented an unreasonable risk of harm
- Harm was reasonably foreseeable
- Merchant created or had actual or constructive knowledge of the harm
- Merchant failed to exercise reasonable care