finals

Question 1

Negligence

Answer 1

Negligence is the failure to behave with the level of care as a reasonable and prudent person would exercise under like conditions. In order for a plaintiff to claim a prima facie case the plaintiff must establish the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, the defendant breached that duty, and the defendant was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries/damages.

Question 2

Duty

Answer 2

A defendant owes a duty to all foreseeable plaintiffs to conform his conduct to the appropriate level of the standard of care in order to protect the plaintiff from unreasonable harm. Under the majority rule, Cardozo’s view provides that foreseeable plaintiffs are those who are within the zone of danger. Whereas Andrews’s view or the minority view, provides that if a duty is owed to one then a duty is owed to all, and everyone is a foreseeable plaintiff.

Question 3

Negligence Per Se

Answer 3

Negligence per se is the violation of a statute that was designed to prevent harm. In order to establish negligence per se the statute must be relevant to the issue of due care and provide a clear standard of conduct, violation of the statute is the cause of the kind of harm that was designed to prevent, and the plaintiff was a member of the statute’s protected class.

Question 4

SOC Professionals

Answer 4

Professionals owe a duty to exercise the same skill knowledge and care of a member of the profession in good standing in similar communities.

Question 5

SOC Physicians

Answer 5

Physicians owe a duty to conform their conduct to the customary practice of other physicians in like circumstances as measured by a national standard.

Question 6

SOC Children

Answer 6

Children owe a duty to exercise care that a reasonable and prudent child of similar age, intelligence, and experience would under like circumstances. The lower standard of care or child soc is not applicable in the event the child is involved in activities done usually by adults.

Question 7

SOC Landowners

Answer 7

Landowners may owe a duty to known trespassers, licensees, and invitees. If there are natural or artificial dangers on the property Landowners may have a duty to inspect, warn and/or make safe. L owes a duty to T to warn about known hidden artificial dangers. L owes a duty to invitees to warn and or make safe if there are natural or artificial dangers on the property. L owes a duty to invitees to inspect and make safe of any danger natural or artificial.

Question 8

licensee

Answer 8

A licensee is a person who is on the property for their own detriment, like a social event such as a party

Question 9

invitee

Answer 9

An invitee is a person who is on the property for the mutual detriment of the landowner and the invitee, such as a patron in a store.

Question 10

B. Breach

Answer 10

A breach occurs when the defendant fails to conform his/her behavior to the applicable standard of care. A breach can also occur from failing to abide by the established statute. A breach can also be proven under the Learned Hand formula and the Res Ipsa Loquitur test.

Question 11

The Learned Hand Formula

Answer 11

B<PL

Under the learned hand formula, a breach of duty can be established if the burden of taking a precaution is less than the probability of the harm occurring and the gravity of the likely harm.

Question 12

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Answer 12

Under the RIL a breach of duty can be established if there is no evidence demonstrating what happened, the event causing the P’s injury is one that would normally not occur in the absence of negligence by someone and the instrument was under the exclusive control of the defendant at the time of the accident.

Question 13

Causation

Answer 13

Causation is the connection that links the defendant’s conduct to the plaintiff’s injury. The P must prove D was the actual and proximate cause of the injuries/damage.

Question 14

Actual

Answer 14

But-For 1 tortfeasor
The D is the actual cause of P’s injuries if but for the d’s failure to exercise reasonable care, the plaintiff would not have suffered the injury.

Multiple tortfeasors Substantial Factor
If the plaintiff sustains damage as the result of two or more negligent tortfeasors, and it appears that the conduct of either one alone would have been sufficient to cause the injury; then both are liable as the actual cause of the injury.

Question 15

Proximate

Answer 15

Proximate causes are foreseeable causes. However, superseding events will breach the chain of causation because they are unforeseeable such as a criminal act or an act of God.

Question 16

Defenses

Answer 16

Once the plaintiff has established: duty, breach, causation, and harm/ injury then the pendulum swings to the defendant. The defendant can assert certain affirmative defenses to a negligence claim.

Question 17

Contributory Negligence

Answer 17

Contributory negligence doctrine completely bars a plaintiff from recovering damages if they are found partially at fault for an accident. This was true even if the plaintiff was only 1 percent at fault.

Question 18

Comparative Fault

Answer 18

Reduces damages by a certain percentage if the plaintiff is partially at fault. For example, the plaintiff may be 10 percent at fault and the defendant is 90 percent at fault. The defendant then would only be responsible for 90 percent of the plaintiff’s damages.

Question 19

Assumption of the Risk

Answer 19

If the plaintiff expressly or impliedly consents to relieve the defendant of an obligation of conduct toward him and to take his chances of harm from a particular risk, the plaintiff is held to have assumed that risk and he is
barred from recovering.

For assumption of the risk to apply, the plaintiff must know
of the risk and voluntarily proceed in the face of it