The document outlines the key elements of establishing negligence in a tort claim: duty, breach, causation, and harm. It discusses factors for determining whether a duty of care was breached, including compliance with statutes and industry customs, as well as tests for assessing causation, such as the "but for" test and substantial factor test. Proximate cause is also addressed, noting liability extends to all foreseeable harms but not unforeseeable harms caused by third-party criminal acts.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The document outlines the key elements of establishing negligence in a tort claim: duty, breach, causation, and harm. It discusses factors for determining whether a duty of care was breached, including compliance with statutes and industry customs, as well as tests for assessing causation, such as the "but for" test and substantial factor test. Proximate cause is also addressed, noting liability extends to all foreseeable harms but not unforeseeable harms caused by third-party criminal acts.
The document outlines the key elements of establishing negligence in a tort claim: duty, breach, causation, and harm. It discusses factors for determining whether a duty of care was breached, including compliance with statutes and industry customs, as well as tests for assessing causation, such as the "but for" test and substantial factor test. Proximate cause is also addressed, noting liability extends to all foreseeable harms but not unforeseeable harms caused by third-party criminal acts.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The document outlines the key elements of establishing negligence in a tort claim: duty, breach, causation, and harm. It discusses factors for determining whether a duty of care was breached, including compliance with statutes and industry customs, as well as tests for assessing causation, such as the "but for" test and substantial factor test. Proximate cause is also addressed, noting liability extends to all foreseeable harms but not unforeseeable harms caused by third-party criminal acts.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
Negligence Formula
Duty (standard of care) Breach Causation harm
2 but for causes; each on its own could have caused the harm 2 independent factors; neither on its own could have caused the harm Industry-wide liability/market share liability Harm is the % lost Damages = lost % x value of life Substantial factor in result (but < 50%) s negligence increased risk of bad outcome
Establishing a Standard of Care Objective Reasonable Person
o o o physical characteristics? Personal/mental characteristics? External circumstances? Trade (merchants) profession
Multiple possible causes
o
Lost chance o o
Custom o o
Substantial factor o o
Efficiency (Business Expenditures)
o o o
If B < PL, then unreasonable NOT to take precaution Transaction costs that go into burden of precaution costs of increasing probability of other injuries if take precaution
Proximate Cause thin skull
o
Breach: Violation of Statute Applicability of statute
o o o o Class of protected persons Type of injury protecting against Liability > fault? CL duty as well? NPS Presumption to rebut Evidence of Negligence
extent of harm need not be foreseeable; takes as he finds him limit: only foreseeable s if no IF, no limit to liability if IF foreseeable? ( is liable) unforeseeable? ( not liable for harm) was IF a 3rd party criminal activity? If so, is it type of crime&harm that duty is intended to protect against?
foreseeability o o o
direct consequence v. IF
Effect of statute o o o o
Versus Compliance w/Statute o Not conclusive
Breach: Res Ipsa Loquitur Inference: No accident absent negligence Ds Exclusive control P didnt contribute to fault Cause in Fact But-for test o o 51% test no harm but for the negligence
