Negligence Flashcards
(83 cards)
1
Q
Lubitz v. Wells
Golf Club
A
A defendant has a duty to mitigate foreseeable risks rather than all possible risks.
2
Q
Pipher v. Parsell
Dangerous Passenger
A
A defendant may be held liable for negligence if they anticipate and fail to take precautions against another person’s harmful conduct.
3
Q
Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.
Water Mains
A
A defendant must only meet a reasonable standard of care given average circumstances. They are not negligent if they do not take precautions against anomalous or unforeseeable events.
4
Q
Davison v. Snohomish County
Car Through Guard Rail
A
A defendant only has a duty to ensure reasonable safety which is commensurate with the danger that risk poses.
5
Q
Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl
Foot in the Turntable
A
- Even if the plaintiff was behaving negligently, if the risk was foreseeable a defendant has a duty of care to mitigate that risk.
- A defendant is responsible for taking reasonable measures to protect others. The precautions must be proportionate to the likelihood and severity of the risk.
6
Q
United States v. Carroll Towing Co.
Boats Breaking Free
A
If B<PL then the defendant has a duty to take precautions.
* B = burden of taking the precautions
* P = probability of the loss
* L = gravity of the loss
7
Q
Vaughan v. Menlove
Haystack Fire
A
- A defendant is held to an objective standard of what a reasonably prudent person would do in the circumstances. Factors such as intelligence do not mitigate liability.
- Exercising a good faith judgment is not a shield for negligence liability.
8
Q
Delair v. McAdoo
Blown Tire
A
The driver of a vehicle has a duty to have reasonable knowledge that their car is in working order.
9
Q
Trimarco v. Klein
Shower Door
A
A defendant may be held liable for negligence if they ignore customary precautions and the burden of those precautions is low.
10
Q
Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co.
Emergency Escape
A
Negligence is relative to the circumstances. A defendant is not required to have the most rational judgment under emergency circumstances that were not of their own making.
11
Q
Roberts v. State of Louisiana
Blind Man
A
A defendant may not be held liable for negligence if they act in accordance with customary rules.
12
Q
Roberts v. Lindsay
Snowmobile
A
Normally children are not held to the same standard as adults in negligence cases except if they are performing actions which are inherently dangerous (such as operating machinery).
13
Q
Breunig v. American Family Ins. Co.
Schizophrenic Episode
A
A mentally ill defendant may have reduced liability if they have an episode which severely impairs their judgment and that episode was not foreseeable.
14
Q
Heath v. Swift Wings Inc.
Inexperienced Plane Crash
A
The standard to which professionals are held is an objective professional standard and is not moderated by the level of experience that professional has.
15
Q
Hodges v. Carter
Suing Attorney
A
- An attorney may not be held liable for negligence if they make a good faith mistake not clarified in the law. This does not extend to good faith mistakes made in an area about which they are expected to be knowledgeable.
- Plaintiffs must prove that had the attorney acted with a reasonable professional standard they would have won the case.
16
Q
Morrison v. MacNamara
Smear Test
A
Professionals are to be held to a national, rather than local, standard.
17
Q
Scott v. Bradford
Hysterectomy Risks
A
Part of a doctor’s standard of care is informed consent. Even if the procedure was done well and the decision to do the procedure was correct, if there is no informed consent there is medical malpractice.
18
Q
Moore v. The Regents of the University of California
Medical Experiment
A
Doctors have a duty to disclose to their patients interests, even outside of the medical scope, which may affect their medical judgment.
19
Q
Pokora v. Wabash Railway
Crossing Train Tracks Without Getting Out
A
If someone violates a statute, etc., they may not be held liable as a rule of law if that rule is unreasonable or impossible to follow in the circumstances.
20
Q
Stachniewicz v. Mar-Cam
Bar Fight
A
If a defendant could have prevented a harm from occurring if they had followed regulations then the defendant has been negligent per se.
21
Q
Osborn v. McMasters
Mislabelled Poison
A
Violating a statute evidences a breach of duty and therefore negligence per se.
22
Q
Perry v. SN and SN
Daycare Molestation
A
- There is no underlying duty to protect others unless the defendant themselves has created the harm.
- Criminal statutes do not fall under the scope of negligence.
23
Q
Zeni v. Anderson
Walking on a Ploughed Road
A
If someone violates a statute, etc., they may not be held liable as a rule of law if that rule is unreasonable or impossible to follow in the circumstances.
24
Q
Martin v. Herzog
Headlights
A
Failure to abide by a statute, if that conduct caused the harm, constitutes negligence per se.
25
Goddard v. Boston & Maine
| Banana at the Train Station
A plaintiff must prove that the defendant was actually negligent to recover damages.
26
Ortega v. Kmart
| Spilt Milk
* Stores are not expected to guarantee their customers’ safety, but they do have a duty of care to keep the premises safe.
* The burden is on the plaintiff to prove the defendant had notice of the hazard, and the hazard had not been remedied.
27
HE Butt Groc. v. Resendez
| Grape Display
In order to recover for negligence from a store, a plaintiff must prove:
1. The defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard
2. The condition of the store posed an unreasonable risk of harm
3. The defendant did not exercise reasonable care to prevent the risk
4. The defendant’s failure to prevent the risk was the proximate cause of the injury.
28
Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway
| Old Banana at the Train Station
Evidence that a defendant had enough time to act to prevent injury is proof of negligence.
29
Joye v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co.
| Banana at the Supermarket
If it is unclear how long a hazard has been there, negligence cannot be proven.
30
Jasko v. FW Woolworth
| Pizza
If the defendant created an environment in which the type of injury in question would occur, the plaintiff does not have to prove the defendant had notice of the exact hazard which caused that specific injury.
31
Byrne v. Boadle
| Flour Barrel
Res ipsa loquitur provides evidence of a breach of duty and therefore provides evidence for a prima facie case of negligence.
32
Cruz v. Daimler Chrysler Motors
| Airbags Accident
Res ipsa loquitur applies to events which
1. Do not occur without negligence
2. Other possible causes by other parties have been ruled out
3. Negligence was within the scope of the defendant’s duty.
33
James v. Wormuth
| Wire in the Lungj
Res ipsa loquitur does not apply if the allegedly negligent act was done intentionally by the defendant.
34
Larson v. St. Francis Hotel
| Chair out the WIndow
In order for a plaintiff to make a res ipsa loquitur case they must prove (1) there was an accident, (2) the thing which caused the accident was under exclusive control of the defendant, (3) if the defendant had used reasonable care the accident would not have occurred.
35
Sullivan v. Crabtree
| Truck off the Road
Procedural effect of res ipsa loquitur:
1. Warrants an inference of negligence which the jury may draw or not
2. Raises a presumption of negligence
3. Shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.
36
Perkins v. Texas and New Orleans Railway
| Speeding Train
Negligence only requires that the defendant’s actions were a substantial factor in the harm, not the only cause. The standard is sine qua non: if the accident would have occurred in the absence of the defendant’s actions then the defendant’s actions were not a substantial factor.
37
Gentry v. Douglas Hereford Ranch
| Slip, Fall, Shoot
* If factual causation cannot be proved, speculation alone does not prove negligence or overcome a motion for summary judgment.
* Causation requires that a plaintiff prove both cause in fact and proximate causation.
38
Reynolds v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
| Fall off the Stairs
If the negligence increases the likelihood of the harm occurring, the possibility that the accident might have happened absent the negligence does not break the chain of causation.
39
Smith v. Providence Health & Services
| Ignored Stroke
In order to recover for medical negligence, a plaintiff must prove he lost a substantial chance of a better medical outcome as a direct result of medical negligence. The defendant receives damages which reflect the quantity of loss.
40
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
| Bendectin Defects
In order for a court to determine if an scientific expert’s testimony is valid, they must examine certain factors:
1. Whether the theory or method is approved of by the scientific community
2. Whether it has been subjected to peer review
3. Whether it can be tested
4. Whether the error rate is acceptable.
41
Kramer Service v. Wilkins
| Skin Cancer
Post hoc ergo propter hoc does not prove causation.
42
Hill v. Edmonds
| Parked at Night
If there is more than one party which has been negligent, each party bears the responsibility of the entirety of the damages, rather than just a fraction.
43
Anderson v. Minneapolis & Marie Railway
| Merging Fire
If a negligent action combines with an act of unknown origin, the defendant is still liable as his action could alone have caused the damage.
44
Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories
| Fungible Drugs
Industry liability: when an industry manufactures fungible goods, if a harm is the result of that good and it cannot be determined who exactly manufactured the exact good in question, the industry has a whole will bear damages proportional to their market share unless they can definitively prove they could not have manufactured the product in question.
45
Summers v. Tice
| Shooting Accident
If two defendants acted negligently, and it cannot be determined which one caused the harm, both will be held liable and will split the cost of damages between them.
46
Commonwealth v. Peterson
| University Shooting
Unless there is a special relationship, a person does not have a duty to warn or protect another person from a third party’s criminal acts.
47
Hegel v. Langsam
| Girl Gone Wild
Universities do not have a duty to intervene in students’ personal lives.
48
LS Ayres v. Hicks
| Kid in Elevator
* There is a special relationship between a shopkeeper and their customers and therefore there is a duty of care.
* If the defendant invites the plaintiff and that plaintiff is injured by an instrument under the control of the defendant then the defendant may be liable for damages even if the defendant was not directly negligent.
49
JS and MS v. RTH
| Neighbor Molestation
* Duty of care weighs up factors: (1) foreseeability and risk of harm, (2) competing interest of the parties, (3) public policy and fairness.
* Someone who suspects their spouse is sexually abusing others has a duty to report the abuse.
* Public and societal interests may outweigh concern with preserving (e.g.) marital privacy.
50
Tarasoff v. Regents of UC
| Therapist Failure to Warn
* There is a duty created by special relationship between a therapist and a third party if the therapist has knowledge that it is reasonably foreseeable that the patient will inflict harm on the third party.
* Public policy concerns outweigh doctor-patient confidentiality.
51
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting
| Construction Car Accident
The negligent action of a third party does not necessarily break down the causal connection between the negligence and the injury. The third party negligence must be extraordinary or unforeseeable to break causation.
52
Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & Railroad
| Gasoline Fire
A third party’s criminal action usually breaks causation as it is not a foreseeable act.
53
Fuller v. Preis
| Suicide by Car Accident
* Suicide is not a superseding cause because although it is intentional, courts recognize it can be an “irresistible impulse”.
* If a reasonable person would foresee that the negligent action would cause harm, it does not matter if the exact manner of the harm is unforeseeable.
54
McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor
| Rescuer at a Car Accident
* Rescue doctrine: allows the rescuer to recover for damages caused to him by the danger created by negligence.
* Four elements: (1) defendant was negligent and the negligence caused the original harm, (2) danger was imminent, (3) reasonably prudent person would have rescued, (4) rescuer acted with reasonable care.
55
Atlantic Coast Line v. Daniels
| Car Stalled on the Tracks
A court may set an arbitrary limit on liability for a negligent action which caused injury, which is done by examining proximate causation.
56
Ryan v. New York Central Railroad
| Knock-On Fire
A negligent defendant is not responsible for damages which are a remote cause of their negligent action - those consequences which are not a “natural or expected result of the [negligent action]”
57
Bartolone v. Jeckovich
| Mentally Ill and a Minor Car Crash
“Thin Skull” plaintiff: a defendant is liable for all damages even if their negligence harms someone more than one should think (e.g. due to a pre-existing condition).
58
Polemis and Furness
| Vapors Blow Boat Up
Even if the exact nature of the damage is unpredictable, if the negligent action is likely to damage of any kind, that defendant is liable for negligence.
59
Yun v. Ford Motor
| Chasing Spare Tire
A negligent action is only the proximate cause when the injury is a foreseeable consequence of the negligence. The negligence is not a proximate cause when a consequence is highly extraordinary.
60
Wagon Mound No. 1
| Oil in the Harbor
A negligent defendant is only liable for foreseeable damages.
61
Wagon Mound No. 2
| Oil in the Harbor
If a defendant could foresee the risk and could have prevented it, he is liable for negligence damages.
62
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad
| Fireworks on a Train
A negligent defendant is only liable for risks inside the ‘zone of danger’ and must only take reasonable precautions to protect those inside that zone.
63
Kelly v. Gwinnell
| DUI
* A host is responsible for any negligence resulting from their guest’s intoxication.
* Liability for damages can be implemented as a matter of supporting public policy.
64
Enright v. Eli Lilly
| Pre-Conception Negligence
* Public policy may expand the limits of proximate causation under extraordinary circumstances, but that liability is not limitless.
* A child cannot recover for damages caused by negligence pre-conception.
65
Teeters v. Currey
| Statute of Limitations for Medical Malpractice
* The statute of limitations in medical malpractice suits begins when the malpractice is discovered, not from when the negligence occurred.
* Statutes of limitations are a matter of public policy, look to promote stability and reduce uncertainty in defending claims.
66
Butterfield v. Forrester
| Horse Crashed into Pole
Plaintiff cannot sue for negligence damages unless they exercised reasonable care to avoid the danger. This created the doctrine of contributory negligence.
67
Davies v. Mann
| Unfettered Donkey
‘Last best chance’ doctrine: even if a plaintiff has been found to be contributorily negligent, if the defendant could have prevented the injury they can still recover.
68
McIntyre v. Balentine
| Drunk Car Crash
Modified comparative negligence: the plaintiff may recover if they were negligent but only if their negligence was less than the defendant’s.
69
Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute
| Injured at the Gym
Exculpatory clauses (express assumption of risk) are valid so long (1) as the defendant does not intentionally cause harm or act recklessly, (2) bargaining power between the parties is not grossly unequal and (3) the contract does not involve an essential public service.
70
Rush v. Commercial Realty
| Fallen through Outhouse
If a plaintiff is only given one option for an essential service then they do not voluntarily assume the risk.
71
Negligence
A defendant acts negligently if they not exercise reasonable care under all circumstances.
Elements of negligence:
1. The defendant has a duty to use reasonable care to protect other from unreasonable risks of harm
2. There has been a breach of this duty
3. There is a reasonable causal connection between the conduct and the injury
4. There has been actual loss or damage.
72
Standard of Care
A defendant fails to take precautions that a reasonable and prudent person would under the same circumstances.
73
Negligence Per Se
If a defendant violates a statute they have automatically breached their duty of care.
Elements of negligence per se:
1. The plaintiff must be in the class of people the statute was meant to protect
2. The injury must flow from the same hazard the statute guards against
3. The statute is appropriate for a tort standard.
74
Rule of Law
Fact patterns that suggest negligence so strongly that some courts do not even refer them to a jury
75
Proximate Causation
* Black’s Law: “any cause which in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening causes, produces the result complained of and without which the result would not have occurred”
* Restatement 3rd: “an actor’s liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious”
* Essentially draws a line around negligence liability
76
Intervening Cause
* Condition or action which foreseeably arose from the defendant’s negligence, does not break chain of proximate causation
77
Superseding Cause
Condition or action which did not foreseeably arise from the defendant’s negligence, breaks chain of proximate cause
78
Causation in Fact
Elements:
1. Negligent conduct occurred before the injury
2. The injury would not have occurred without the negligent conduct
79
Sine qua non
Injury would have occurred regardless of another's actions
80
Res Ipsa Loquitur
* "The thing speaks for itself"
* Restatement (2nd): "Past experience which reasonably permits the conclusion that such events do not ordinarily occur unless someone has been negligent"
81
Contributory Negligence
A plaintiff acting negligently is sufficient to completely bar them from recovery.
Elements:
1. Plaintiff’s conduct does not meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable person.
2. Plaintiff’s negligence is in any way an actual and proximate cause of the injury.
82
Comparative Negligence
If both the plaintiff and the defendant acted negligently, the damages awarded to the plaintiff will be reduced by their portion of the negligence.
Types:
1. Pure comparative negligence: each party bears the damages in proportion to the impact of their negligence on the injury.
2. Modified comparative negligence: if a plaintiff’s negligence is greater than or equal to the defendant’s negligence then recovery is barred.
83
Assumption of Risk
If a plaintiff takes on risk before they perform an activity, they are unable to recovery from injuries resulting from that activity.
Elements:
1. Plaintiff had actual knowledge of the risk
2. Plaintiff appreciated its magnitude
3. Plaintiff voluntarily encountered it
Types:
* Implied assumption of risk: context suggests that a reasonable person would assume risk
* Express assumption of risk: plaintiff explicitly agrees to assume risk (e.g. through a contract)
