Page 10

Question 0

What is the jury’s role in negligence?

Answer 0

To decide if the defendant was acting reasonably

Question 1

If the plaintiff can’t establish one or more elements of negligence by a preponderance of the evidence, what happens?

Answer 1

Defendant wins

Question 2

Negligence is liability for what?

Answer 2

Unreasonable risk creation

Question 3

What does the defendant do in a negligence situation?

Answer 3

Engages in risk creating conduct that leads to personal injury/property damage to a foreseeable P

Question 4

What is the most frequently tested subject in tort?

Answer 4

Negligence

Question 5

Does the standard of care for negligence ever change?

Answer 5

No

Question 6

What is proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 6

Negligence was an event sufficiently related to the injury to be the cause of it, close enough to harm in a chain of events

Question 7

What is duty for negligence?

Answer 7

Generally you owe a duty to all foreseeable plaintiffs within the zone of danger to act as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances

Question 8

Does it make a difference if the defendant believed he was acting in good faith and being careful, to the duty analysis for negligence?

Answer 8

No, all that matters is how a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would’ve acted

Question 9

How is the duty test for negligence aspirational?

Answer 9

It doesn’t ask what an ordinary person really does, but how he ought to behave under the circumstances

Question 10

Why should you never tell the jury to ask how they would’ve acted in a negligence suit?

Answer 10

Because they have to act how a reasonable person would’ve acted in those circumstances

Question 11

The greater the foreseeable risk of harm involved for negligence, the greater the what?

Answer 11

Care required

Question 12

What is the only element of negligence that is first decided by the judge, and then the other elements are decided by the jury?

Answer 12

Duty

Question 13

What are the things that the judge decides for duty?

Answer 13

• does D owe a duty of care? If he does….

- what is the scope of the duty?

Question 14

What are the elements of proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 14

• foreseeability

- zone of danger

Question 15

What is the foreseeability that is required for proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 15

If the actual consequences of the conduct are so bizarre or far removed from the risks of his negligence, then you shouldn’t be liable for the resulting harm

Question 16

What does it mean to consider the scope of liability for foreseeability for negligence?

Answer 16

How far the defendant’s liability extends for consequences caused by his negligent acts

Question 17

What is the zone of danger for proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 17

Duty extends only to a plaintiff that is within the foreseeable zone of danger, so if the person was too much outside of this, it is too remote

Question 18

What is the defining case for zone of danger for proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 18

Palsgraf

Question 19

What are the three tests for proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 19

• Foreseeability test
• Directness/remoteness test
• Risk rule

Question 20

What is the foreseeability test for proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 20

Looks at how foreseeable the injury to the plaintiff was, the type, extent, and manner of injury. If it wasn’t foreseeable, then liability is denied

Question 21

What is the directness/remoteness test for proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 21

All harm that flows from the defendant’s negligent conduct, regardless of foreseeability, so long as it isn’t too remote, is the proximate cause

Question 22

What is the risk rule for proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 22

If the risk of what actually happened to the plaintiff was part of what made the defendant’s conduct unreasonable, the defendant is liable for plaintiff’s injury

Question 23

What were the two major views in the Palsgraf case?

Answer 23

• Andrews’ dissenting broad view

- Cardozo’s narrow view

Question 24

What was the Andrew's approach to the Palsgraf case?

Answer 24

Defendant owes a duty to anyone in the world that suffers injuries as a result of his breach of duty

Question 25

If an exam question follows the Andrew's approach, it is likely that there will be what?

Answer 25

Liability

Question 26

What are the factors included in the Andrew's approach?

Answer 26

- foreseeability of harm - directness of connection between D's act and plaintiff's harm - if it was natural/continuous sequence between the two - if the act was a substantial factor in causing harm - if the harm was too remote in time and space

Question 27

What are the one words to sum up the Andrews and the Cardozo views to foreseeability?

Answer 27

- Andrews: anyone | - Cardozo: zone

Question 28

What is the Cardozo view for proximate cause?

Answer 28

Duty is only owed to foreseeable plaintiffs in the zone of danger (those a reasonable person would have foreseen a risk to under the circumstances)

Question 29

A reasonable person following the Cardozo view would've had to have foreseen what?

Answer 29

A risk of harm to the plaintiff or a class of people the plaintiff belongs to and been in the zone of danger

Question 30

If you come to the rescue of someone imperiled, are you within the scope of the Cardozo view?

Answer 30

Yes, because the rescuer is as much a foreseeable plaintiff as the person actually injured

Question 31

In the Palsgraf case, why didn't Cardozo find a duty owed to the woman that had the scales fall on her?

Answer 31

Because a reasonable person wouldn't have foreseen any risk to her, since she was a considerable distance away and wasn't in the zone of danger, so defendant didn't owe her a duty of care

Question 32

When would a defendant not be liable to the rescuer under the Cardozo view?

Answer 32

If the rescue attempt was foolhardy under the circumstances

Question 33

What is the standard of care for negligence?

Answer 33

Reasonably prudent person acting with reasonable care

Question 34

The standard of care never changes but what?

Answer 34

The care that is reasonable to require of the actor varies with the danger involved in his act and is proportionate to it

Question 35

Under the standard of care for negligence, the greater the danger, the greater the what?

Answer 35

Care that must be exercised

Question 36

What does the standard of care required for negligence mean?

Answer 36

Level of conduct demanded of a person to avoid liability for negligence

Question 37

What is the reasonable person standard?

Answer 37

A person that exercises the degree of attention, knowledge, intelligence, and judgment that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and others' interests

Question 38

What must be established for negligence?

Answer 38

- duty - standard of care - breach - causation: actual and proximate - damages