Torts Flashcards
Negligence Elements
The elements of the prima facie case for negligence are as follows:
- The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to conform to a specific standard of care;
- The defendant breached that duty;
- The breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries; AND
- The plaintiff sustained actual damages or loss.
Reasonable Person Standard
The default standard of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is that of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances as measured by an objective standard. The defendant is presumed to have average mental abilities and knowledge.
_________________________________
Physical Disabilities. Particular physical disabilities may be taken into account (e.g., blindness, deafness, etc.). E.g., the standard of care for a blind person would be that of a reasonably prudent blind person under the circumstances as measured by an objective standard
Intoxication. Intoxicated people are held to the same standard as sober people UNLESS the intoxication was involuntary.
Community Customs. Community customs may be relevant in determining reasonableness, but they are NOT dispositive.
NOTE. The reasonable person standard is the default standard of care. It should be applied unless a special standard of care applies (e.g., children, professionals, physicians, landowners, negligence per se, etc.).
eas
Standard of Care: Kids
Children are held to the standard of care of a reasonably prudent child of similar age, experience, and intelligence under the circumstances (more subjective). However, if the child is engaged in adult activity, the court will not take the child’s age into account (i.e., the child will be held to an “adult” standard).
Standard of Care: Professionals
A professional (e.g., nurses, lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects, etc.) is expected to exhibit the knowledge and skill of a member of the profession in good standing in similar communities.
Standard of Care: Doctors
Physicians are held to a national standard of care and have a duty to disclose the risks of treatment to enable a patient to give informed consent. This duty is only breached if an undisclosed risk was so serious that a reasonable person in the patient’s position would not have consented upon learning of the risk.
Psychotherapists Duty to Warn
In the majority of states, psychotherapists have a duty to warn potential victims of a patient’s serious threats of harm if the patient has the apparent intent and ability to carry out such threats and the potential victim is readily identifiable.
Actual Causation
In order to prove negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct was both the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
To prove actual cause, the plaintiff must show that her injury would not have occurred BUT FOR the defendant’s negligence.
Substantial Factor Test. However, if traditional “but for” causation cannot be shown, most courts are willing to implement a “substantial factor” test. Under a substantial factor test, actual cause can be established if the defendant’s breach was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s harm
Proximate Causation
In order to prove negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct was both the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
To prove proximate cause, the plaintiff must show that her injury was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct.
An intervening cause is an outside force or action that contributes to the plaintiff’s harm after the defendant’s act or omission has occurred.
If the intervening cause is unforeseeable, it is a superseding cause and the defendant’s liability to the plaintiff will be cut off.
3 Categories of Strict Liability
Under strict liability, a defendant will be liable for damages REGARDLESS of how careful they were (i.e., negligence is NOT required to be held liable). Generally, there are three categories of strict liability:
Animals;
Abnormally dangerous activities; AND
Defective products.
SL: Domestic Animals
Domestic animals are animals that have been trained over time to live and breed in a tame condition (e.g., dogs, cats, farm animals, etc.). An owner of a domestic animal will NOT be strictly liable for harm caused by the animal UNLESS the owner knows or has reason to know of the animal’s dangerous propensity.
SL: Wild Animals
Wild animals are animals that, as a species or class, are not customarily kept in the service of mankind (e.g., tigers, monkeys, etc.). An owner of a wild animal is strictly liable for any harm caused by the animal regardless of safety precautions taken by the owner. However, owners are generally NOT strictly liable for harm caused to trespassers.
SL: Abnormally Dangerous Activites
A defendant is strictly liable for damages caused to the plaintiff if he is engaged in abnormally dangerous activities. An abnormally dangerous activity is one that is:
- Inherently dangerous;
- Inappropriate for the location chosen;
- Virtually impossible to make safe; AND
- Of little value to the community.
Products Liability: Manufacture Defects
A strict liability claim under products liability requires the plaintiff to show:
- The product was defective in manufacture, design, or failure to warn;
- The defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control; AND
- The defect caused the plaintiff’s injury when the product was used in a foreseeable way.
Products Liability: Manufacture Defects
A defect in manufacture requires the plaintiff to show that the product:
- Deviated from its intended design; AND
- Fails to conform to the manufacturer’s own design.
Products Liability: Design Defect
There are two tests for a defect in design:
- Under the consumer expectation test, the plaintiff must show that the product is less safe than the ordinary consumer would expect.
- Under the risk-utility test, the plaintiff must show that the product’s risks outweigh its benefits AND that there is a reasonable alternative design.
