Novice Knockout Case Law

Lakkaraju v. Edwards (1930)

Negligence refers to a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. Negligence usually consists of actions but can also involve the failure to act when there is some duty to act.

Bardhi v. Kroll (1955)

The elements of negligence are the following: (i) the existence of a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (ii) the defendant’s breach of that duty; (iii) harm suffered by the plaintiff; and (iv) proof that the defendant’s breach was the direct and proximate cause of the harm that the plaintiff suffered.

Venezia v. Chintakayala (1980)

In a negligence case, a duty of care can arise in a number of circumstances. There is no exhaustive list, but the most common situations in which a defendant has a duty to act include: (i) the defendant created the risk which resulted in the plaintiff’s harm; (ii) the defendant volunteered to protect the plaintiff from harm; (iii) the defendant knew or should have known that their conduct would cause harm to the plaintiff; and (iv) the business or voluntary relationship between the plaintiff and defendant creates a duty.

Belloncle v. Rutecki (1985)

Proving that the defendant owed a duty is not enough to prevail in a negligence case. The plaintiff must also prove that the defendant breached their duty to the plaintiff. A defendant breached a duty by failing to act reasonably in fulfilling or attempting to fulfill the duty.

Ying v. Toussimehr (1990)

A defendant “fails to act reasonably” for the purposes of negligence liability if they have departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances. The reasonableness test is an objective test—the specific abilities or traits of the defendant are irrelevant. Thus, even a person with low intelligence or who is chronically careless is held to the same standard as a more careful person or a person of higher intelligence.

Louis-Ferdinand v. Allen (1993)

In deciding whether a defendant acted reasonably, the jury may take into consideration whether or not the defendant followed standards that are prevailing in the industry or complied with customs prevailing in the community. While such industry standards and community customs are relevant, they are not necessarily dispositive.

Alwardi v. Subramaniam (1999)

A defendant is not absolved from liability by following industry standards or community customs if it was clear or should have been clear to the defendant that the defendant’s conduct or the particular situation was not contemplated by industry standards or by community customs.

Paul Dachtler LLP v. Joseph Comedy Club (2001)

All persons are required to give their surroundings the attention that a reasonable person would give them under the circumstances, making due allowances for those things that would distract the attention or perception of a reasonable person.

Coughlin v. Kunde (2002)

In determining the standard of care applicable at law, consideration is permitted of some physical or mental qualities or characteristics of the particular actor in determining whether or not tortious conduct has occurred. Thus, persons suffering from a physical disability, such as complete or partial blindness, are held to reasonable care under circumstances that include blindness.

Mayer v. Amare (2010)

It is well known that many activities involve certain predictable risks that are likely to arise during the course of those activities. In determining whether an actor is to be excused for an error of judgment that occurs during a sudden emergency, courts must consider whether the emergency was of the sort that was predictable and thus could or should have been addressed by appropriate procedures or training.

Scanlon v. Burnett (2012)

Individuals having superior skill or knowledge are required to conduct themselves consistent with such superior capacity. In the practice of a trade or profession, the standard of care is the skill and knowledge normally possessed by members of that trade or profession in good standing in similar communities.

Allen v. Neptune Underwater Expedition (2013)

Members of certain trades or professions may possess different levels of skill and knowledge. For example, professional scuba divers possess greater skill and knowledge than amateur scuba divers. Consistent with Scanlon v. Burnett (2012), the standard of care in the practice of a trade or profession is the skill and knowledge normally possessed by members of that trade or profession in good standing in similar communities. However, in trades and professions containing both professionals and amateurs, professionals shall be held to a higher standard than amateurs.

Yanka v. Edwards Industries (1961)

Causation has two components: cause in fact (or direct cause) and proximate cause. To show cause in fact, the plaintiff must establish either that the plaintiff would not have been harmed “but-for” the defendant’s conduct or that the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. Proximate cause requires showing that the particular harm suffered by the plaintiff was both a foreseeable result of the defendant’s wrongful or unlawful conduct and is of a type that could reasonably have been anticipated. In performing this analysis, the factfinder must first identify the particular risks that made the defendant’s actions culpable and then determine whether the injury suffered is among those risks. An example is a parent who hands a small child a loaded gun, which the child then drops on the plaintiff’s foot. Although it was of course negligent for the parent to give the child a loaded gun, the risk that made the parent’s actions culpable was the gun may discharge and injure someone. The harm that the plaintiff actually suffered, meanwhile, could equally have occurred had the gun been a toy or unloaded.

Whalen v. Wilkerson (1975)

The notion that a risk must be “foreseeable” in order for a defendant to have violated its duty of care does not require that the defendant be able to anticipate in advance the target of the harm or the precise manner in which the harm or accident will occur. Instead, it requires only that the defendant should have foreseen the general type of risk that caused the accident.

Aronsohn v. JT’s Sandwiches, LLC (2003)

Plaintiff-Appellant was injured after slipping and falling on a puddle of water on Defendant-Appellee’s property. Plaintiff-Appellant had tried to wipe up the water with napkins and fell while bending over, injuring his wrist. Defendant-Appellee argues that the trial court erroneously excluded the argument that Plaintiff-Appellant’s conduct (in cleaning the puddle of water) broke any chain of causation arising from Defendant-Appellee’s own negligence. Held: on these facts, exclusion of this argument was proper. If a plaintiff’s actions are foreseeable in response to a defendant’s negligence, they do not break the chain of causation—even if the plaintiff's actions are themselves negligent. In such a case, the plaintiff’s negligence, if any, must be argued as an affirmative defense of comparative negligence. If, however, a plaintiff’s actions are so reckless or unforeseeable that they could not be reasonably anticipated by the defendant, then the defendant may argue that the plaintiff’s actions break the chain of causation.