Negligence

Torts

A wrong

Purpose of tort law

to redress a wrong that allows an injured party to seek compensation due to another person’s wrongful act —> redresses a wrong through money

Civil vs. Criminal cases

Criminal: prosecuted by state, punished through fines and imprisonment

Civil: brought by private citizens, compensation is given to the victim

Burden of Proof in civil vs criminal cases

Criminal: Ruling must be beyond a reasonable doubt—> any doubt and they are not guilty

Civil: By a preponderance of the evidence— if its slightly more likely that the person did it, can be plead liable

Classification of Torts

• Intentional

• Unintentional (Negligence)

• Strict Liability (liability attaches without a breach of duty or intent)

Negligence

failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under similar circumstances

Reasonable Person Standard

Ask: how would an ordinary person act under a specific set of circumstances?

Ask: What is foreseeable under the circumstances?

Elements of negligence

Duty

Breach of Duty

Cause (Actual and Proximate)

Harm/Damages

Duty of Care

To conform to a specific standard of care

Ask: Did the defendant act as a reasonable person would act under similar circumstances?

Duty

a legal obligation one party owes to another party

Breach of Duty

Defendants actions did not match the standard of care required under the circumstances

Causation

Connects the breach of duty with the plaintiff’s injury

tells id the defendant’s breach of duty CAUSED the injury

• Actual cause: BUT FOR the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff would not be harmed

• Proximate cause: would a reasonable person foresee the consequences of the actions

Actual causation

Cause in fact

• But for the defendant’s actions would the plaintiff have been harmed?

• must show a direct link between the defendant’s conduct and the injury

Proximate Causation (legal cause)

places a limit on the extent to which an injured party may assert that her injuries were the direct result of the wrongdoer’s conduct

• Asks if it was foreseeable that the damage would happen

Damages

harm caused by the wrongdoer

• has to be a legally recognized harm

• covers personal injuries, property damages, and economic damages

NO HARM = no tort = no compensation

Types of damages

• Compensatory: intended to compensate the victim for injuries and losses; must quantify the harm

• Punitive: when the defendants conduct was negligent and needs to be punished

Defenses to negligence

• Comparative negligence

• Contributory Negligence

• Assumption of Risk

Comparative Negligence

• Victims own conduct may have contributed to the injuries or damages sustained by the victim

  • If plaintiff took part in 20% of the injury, only 80% would be compensated

Contributory Negligence

Allows defendant to show that the victim’s own conduct contributed to her injuries

• Compensation is either all or nothing

Assumption of Risk

When a victim has knowledge that the defendant’s condict may cause harm but still voluntarily chooses to plave herself with the defendant’s conduct

Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railroad

• Palsgraf was on the platform waiting for a train

• Man carrying a package was catching the train but was late so the workers were pushing him onto the train

• the package he was holding fell onto the tracks and exploded (was fireworks)—> injured Palsgraf

• Railroad company was sued—> proved that they were not negligent because the injuries of Palsgraf were not foreseeable