Tort Law: Negligence and Liability Concepts

Negligence in Tort Law:

• Elements of Negligence:
• Duty: Obligation imposed on individuals to uphold certain standards of care.
• Breach: Failure to meet the duty of care.
• Causation: Connection between the breach of duty and the resulting damages.
• Damages: Harm or injury suffered by the plaintiff.
• Causation:
• Cause in Fact: Actual link between the breach and damages.
• Proximate Cause: Focuses on foreseeability and the immediate connection between the negligence and damages.

Foreseeability:

• Key factor in determining proximate cause; emphasizes how predictable the resultant damages were from the defendant's actions.
• Case Study: Train fire incident highlights how too many intervening factors can break proximate cause.

Types of Causes:

• Direct Causes versus Remote Causes: Direct causes have an immediate impact on the damages, whereas remote causes are indirect.
• Intervening Causes: External factors that intervene between the negligent act and the injury.
• Importance of analyzing these causes to determine the extent of liability.

Increased Risk and Proportionality:

• Includes assessments of whether the negligent act increased the risk of harm and whether damages are proportionate to the breach.

Eggshell Plaintiff Rule:

• A defendant is liable for a plaintiff's injuries even if those injuries are more severe than what a typical person would expect due to the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions.

Superseding Causes:

• These are acts that occur after the initial negligent act, which can cut off the defendant's liability.
• Differentiation between intervening cause and superseding cause is crucial.

Comparative Negligence:

• If a plaintiff is found partially responsible for their own injury, damages are apportioned based on fault.
• Contributory Negligence: Old standard where a plaintiff could receive no damages if partially at fault.

Joint and Several Liability:

• Multiple defendants can be held responsible for the entire amount of damages regardless of each one's share of fault.
• In some jurisdictions, this concept may be modified or eliminated entirely when comparative negligence is in play.

Court Cases Discussing Liability:

• Watson v. Kentucky RR Co.: Highlights the distinction in liability due to intervening intentional acts.
• McCoy v. American Suzuki Co.: Examines the rescue doctrine and liability of manufacturers in product liability cases.
• Berry v. Quality Steel Products Inc.: Explores joint and several liability in the context of product liability after a workplace accident.
• Enright v. Eli Lilly: This case demonstrates limits of liability for past actions taken by previous generations and discusses the foreseeability of harm.
• Bartlett v. NM: Discussed joint and several liability in terms of apportioned fault among defendants and whether defendants should be liable for more than their assessed fault.