Unintentional Torts: Negligence

Unintentional Torts

Negligence

Negligence is a type of unintentional tort. Tort law aims to redress wrongs and legally recognize the rights of those who have suffered from the wrongful acts of another, providing compensation/remedies to those who have suffered a loss or injury due to another person’s wrongful act.

Private Right of Action

Unlike criminal actions, which are prosecuted by the state and punished by fines or imprisonment, tort actions are brought by private citizens seeking compensation from the victim. For example, both murder (a criminal action) and wrongful death (a tort action) can stem from the same event.

Criminal and Civil Cases

Criminal cases:

  • Prosecuted by the State

  • Punishment includes fines and imprisonment

  • Example: Murder

  • Burden of Proof: Beyond a reasonable doubt

  • High stakes, such as life in prison or the death penalty.

Civil Cases:

  • Brought by private citizens

  • Seeks compensation to the victim

  • Example: Wrongful Death

  • Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the evidence, compensatory damages in the form of money.

OJ Simpson Example

In 1995, Simpson was acquitted of all murder charges, but in January 1997, the Goldman family brought a civil suit for wrongful death, and Simpson was found liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Civil vs. Criminal - Key Differences

  • Criminal: State versus the defendant; verdict is guilty or not guilty; requires a unanimous jury verdict in most cases; standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • Civil: Plaintiff versus the defendant; determination of liable or not liable; money damages paid to the plaintiff; standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence.

  • Refer to different standards of proof that must be met in varying types of cases.

    • Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

      • This standard is used in criminal cases.

      • It requires that the evidence presented must be so convincing that there is no reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt.

      • The stakes are high, such as a life sentence or significantly severe penalties.

      • It places a heavy burden on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt.

    • Preponderance of the Evidence

      • This standard is utilized in civil cases.

      • It requires that the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that the claim is true; essentially, over 50% certainty.

      • It is a lower standard of proof compared to beyond a reasonable doubt.

      • In civil cases, the party bringing the suit (the Plaintiff) seeks compensation for the harm suffered.

Classification of Torts

Torts can be classified based on intent:

  • Intentional: A deliberate act.

  • Unintentional (Negligence): Breach of a duty to act reasonably.

  • Strict Liability: Liability attaches without any breach of duty or intent.

Negligence Defined

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

Reasonable Person Standard

The “Reasonable Person Standard” defines how an ordinarily prudent person would act under a specific set of circumstances.

  • What is foreseeable under the circumstances?

  • Example: Reasonable drivers behave differently on a long stretch of road in the desert on a clear sunny day versus in an ice storm with limited visibility in heavy traffic.

Elements of Negligence

To establish negligence, the following elements must be proven:

  1. Duty: A specific standard of care.

  2. Breach of Duty: The defendant didn’t conform to the standard of care.

  3. Cause: The breach was the cause of the harm, including:

    • Actual cause

    • Proximate cause

  4. Harm/Damages: The plaintiff suffered an injury.

Duty of Care

Does the defendant owe a duty to the plaintiff? The standard is whether the defendant conducted themselves as a reasonable person would under similar circumstances. If the behavior matches the reasonable person standard, the defendant has satisfied the duty of care required.

Breach of Duty

The defendant’s actions did not match the standard of care required under the circumstances. Driving in the snow requires more care than driving on a clear day when the roads are dry; driving recklessly in a snowstorm is a breach of the duty of care.

Cause

The Defendant’s breach of duty must be the cause of the plaintiff’s injury:

Cause in Fact

The defendant’s breach is the actual cause of injury to the plaintiff.

  • “But for” test – but for the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff would not be harmed.

Proximate Cause (Legal Cause)

The question is whether a reasonable person would foresee the consequences of the actions, based on foreseeability of the risk.

Proximate Cause - Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad

  • Facts: Helen Palsgraf was on the platform waiting for a train. A man carrying a package was rushing to catch the train. As the train was moving away from a platform across the tracks from Mrs. Palsgraf, the man attempted to jump onto the train, but seemed unsteady and about to fall. A railroad guard on the train reached forward to grab him and pull him onto the train while another guard on the platform pushed him from behind to help him board the train. In the process, the man’s package fell onto the tracks and exploded. The package contained fireworks, but there was nothing about the package that would indicate that the package contained fireworks. The repercussions of the explosion caused “scales” on the other side of the train platform to fall on Mrs. Palsgraf causing her injuries.

  • Mrs. Palsgraf sued the LIRR. At trial, the jury found that the guards were negligent. The railroad appealed.

  • On appeal, the court held that the railroad company was not negligent because the injuries Mrs. Palsgraf sustained were not foreseeable.

Foreseeability

In the Palsgraf case, the key question is foreseeability. While it might be foreseeable that the man carrying the package would fall, it is not foreseeable that he was carrying fireworks.

Harm

The plaintiff must suffer a legally recognizable injury. If there is no harm or injury, there is nothing to compensate and there is no tort.

Damages

  • Compensatory damages

  • Punitive damages: Awarded when the defendant’s conduct was grossly negligent, which includes intentional failure to perform a duty with reckless disregard of the consequences to others.

Defenses

  • Assumption of the Risk: When the victim has knowledge of the dangers and voluntarily chooses to engage in the activity.

  • Comparative Negligence: When the plaintiff’s own conduct contributed to the injuries, the court will reduce the damages awarded to the plaintiff in proportion to the percentage fault that is attributed to the plaintiff’s conduct.

  • Contributory Negligence: If the plaintiff’s actions contributed to the injuries, then the plaintiff is entitled to no damages (only followed by 4 US states).

Disney – Food Allergy Suit

  • Issue – Did Disney act negligently by failing to ensure that a meal served in one of its restaurants was free of allergens, leading to the death of Dr. Tangsuan?

  • Negligence analysis:

    • What is the duty?

    • Did Disney breach its duty?

    • Did the breach cause harm (actual cause and proximate cause)?

    • What is the harm?"