Negligence

Question 1

Negligence Per Se Rules

Answer 1

(1) Statute must clearly define required standard of conduct
(2) plaintiff must belong to the class of persons that the statute was intended to protect
(3) plaintiff must have suffered the type of harm that statute was intended to prevent

Question 2

Negligence Per Se exceptions

Answer 2

(1) actor’s childhood, physical disability, or physical incapacitation
(2) actor exercises reasonable care in trying to comply with statute
(3) actor doesn’t know and has no reason to know of the factual circumstances that render the statute applicable
(4) actor’s violation of statute is due to the confusing way that statute’s requirements are presented to public
(5) compliance with statute would involved greater risk of harm to actor or others

Question 3

Reasonable Prudent Person Standard

Answer 3

What a reasonable prudent person would do under the same or similar circumstances to avoid or minimize foreseeable and unreasonable risks of harm to others
–> dangerous instrumentalities
–> sudden emergencies
–> physical disabilities
–> sudden incapacities
–> intoxication
–> older people
–> mental disabilities
–> superior knowledge, ability, experience

Question 4

Duty

Answer 4

Did the defendant owe a duty to the plaintiff? Palsgraf Rule
What was the standard of care? RPP/Negligence Per Se

Question 5

Breach

Answer 5

Carroll Towing Risk-Utility Balancing Test
Negligence Per Se
Res Ipsa
Industry Custom
Compliance with Statute

Question 6

Carroll Towing Risk-Utility Balancing Test

Answer 6

Burden of preventing harm
Likelihood of harm
Gravity of harm

Question 7

Res Ipsa

Answer 7

–> P cannot state the specific conduct that the defendant engaged in or omitted that caused the accident
–> accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur unless someone was negligent
–> whether the facts show that it is more likely than not the defendant’s negligence, rather than someone else’s negligence, that caused the harm
–> plaintiff did not cause the accident

jury can, but not required to infer breach

Question 8

Factual Causation

Answer 8

–> “but for” test
substantial factor test
alternative liability test
market share liability test

Question 9

Proximate Causation

Answer 9

intervening cause (within the scope of risks)
type or kind of harm
eggshell plaintiff rule (pre-existing condition)

Question 10

Harm

Answer 10

did the plaintiff suffer a legally compensable harm?
–> reasonably foreseeable harm based on breach

contributory negligence
pure comparative fault jurisdiction
modified comparative fault jurisdiction

Question 11

contributory negligence

Answer 11

prevents an injured person from recovering damages if they are found to be even slightly at fault

Question 12

pure comparative fault jurisdiction

Answer 12

allows recovery even if the plaintiff is largely at fault

Question 13

modified comparative fault jurisdiction

Answer 13

allows recovery but holds a threshold of 50% or 51% of the plaintiff’s fault