TortsIWeek7

TortsIWeek7 - TORTS I WEEK SEVEN FALL 2007 PROFESSOR GHOSH...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
TORTS I WEEK SEVEN FALL 2007 PROFESSOR GHOSH I. We turn to the next element of a claim for negligence: breach of duty by an unreasonable act of the defendant. Once the plaintiff has established that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, the plaintiff has to establish that the defendant breached that duty by acting unreasonably. The first set of readings this week lay out the relationship between duty and breach of duty. The second set starts to explain what constitutes reasonableness. A. Rogers v Retrum, p 1365, presents the duty and breach elements. First, the court establishes that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty. This analysis is a foreseeability analysis. Then, the court considers whether the defendant breached that duty by acting unreasonably. The unreasonableness analysis focuses on the severity of the risk, the likelihood of harm, and its graveness. B. Ways of establishing reasonableness: some examples 1. Caliri, p 140, presents the standard jury instruction on reasonableness in the
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
Ask a homework question - tutors are online