final work - Negligence The tort of negligence it is always...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Negligence The tort of negligence it is always used when the conduct of one party did not live up to a certain minimal standard of care we are all expected to use. Negligence imposes liability on us when we are careless. Element One: The Duty Each of us has the duty to act like an ordinary and reasonably prudent person in all circumstances. We do not always live up to the standard of the ordinary and reasonably prudent person ; when we do not, we are negligent. The standard of the ordinary and reasonably prudent person is not always what everyone else does or what the law provides. The level of care imposed on us by the ordinary and reasonably prudent person standard is one that requires an examination of all conditions and circumstances surrounding an event that leads to an injury. Many negligence cases struggle with the difficult task of determining whether a duty exists. Ordinary and reasonably prudent person In negligence, standard used for determining the level of care required in any given situation. Duties, for purposes of negligence actions, can arise because of an underlying statute. Every traffic law carries a criminal penalty (fine and/or imprisonment) for violations of it. However, that law imposes a duty of obedience. A violation of that law is also a breach of duty for purposes of a civil or negligence action. When you run a red light, you have not only committed a crime; you have also breached a duty and are liable for injuries and damages resulting from that breach. Element Two: Breach of Duty Failure to satisfy ethical, legal, or moral obligations, specially where someone has a corresponding right to demand the satisfaction. Once the standard of care and the duty are established under element one, there must be a determination that the defendant fell short of that standard or breached that duty for the plaintiff to recover on the basis of negligence. In many cases, courts try to determine whether the duty was breached to determine whether the defendant’s action satisfied the standard of care established in element one. Element Three: Causation Causation is the area of negligence where things seem to get a little more complicated. Attorneys use causation as a defense; however, it is an element of fault. If we can prove that causation did not exist, then negligence falls apart . What we are trying to determine here is that the duty you breached caused the ultimate harm. We are looking for the connection between the two. Causation is probably the most important element when defending your claim from fault. Adjusters seem to overlook this element. Causation must be shown every single time and it cannot be presumed. The element of Causation is divided into two different steps. In order to have causation, the duty breached must be the ACTUAL CAUSE of the accident and it ALSO must be the LEGAL CAUSE of the accident.
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
*ACTUAL OR FACTUAL CAUSE But for Element Four: Proximate Cause
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.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 9

final work - Negligence The tort of negligence it is always...

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