Prelim 2 Review_StudyGuide - General Negligence Analysis...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
General Negligence Analysis Duty of care – general duty of care under the circumstances to prevent foreseeable harm to the plaintiff. Did the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care? o Off Property – not private property (city streets, sidewalks) Eye of ordinary vigilance (foreseeability) o On Property – private property Invitee – highest; must protect them from harm and exercise reasonable care Business purposes Reasonable care: o Did the defendant warn the guests if known dangers? o If the defendant didn’t know the dangers, should they have known o Innkeepers are held to the highest standard of care in some jurisdictions because guests are trusting then with their safety. o Business owners have to take reasonable care to protect guests from one another. Especially if alcohol is served Licensee – social guest with or without being invited They are welcome and not for business purposes Must warn of known dangers if the danger is not obvious Test to prove negligence: o Defendant knows about the defect o Plaintiff does not know about the defect o Defendant knows that the plaintiff doesn’t know about the defect Trespasser – no right to be on property, came onto property without the permission of the owner Attractive nuisance exception, if trespasser is a child then you do owe them a duty of care to protect them from foreseeable harm You don’t have to warn them of harm, but you cannot intentionally set up any traps. Duty to not set up traps o Half of jurisdictions will disregard the labels: tress, licensee, invitee They treat everyone under standards of an invitee, except for unknown trespassers Breach – The defendant acted negligently (decided by jury) o Was there a breach – o Usually yes or there is no negligence o If there is not a history of negligent act, then you can say they didn’t breach Causation o Must have actual and proximate causation o Always a question for the jury: did the defendants’ actions cause the plaintiff’s harm? Actual – “But-for” – Did the defendants actions or omission of action cause the harm? When the injury would not have occurred “but-for” the defendants act. Apply the but-for test, ask but for the defendants breach, would this incident have happened? This will basically satisfy every time Proximate – Was the harm foreseeable? The defendants conduct must be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Intervening cause – when a 3 rd party enters the scenario and their intervention is foreseeable. The defendant is still liable for all the damages Superseding Cause – When it is not foreseeable that a third party would enter the scenario. In this case, there is not proximate cause, thus no liability for the defendant Ex: Berry v. Sugarnotch
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This test prep was uploaded on 02/19/2009 for the course H ADM 387 taught by Professor Dsherwyn during the Fall '07 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 6

Prelim 2 Review_StudyGuide - General Negligence Analysis...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online