LGST 101 Lecture 16

Certain factors add up to define reasonable o how

Info icon This preview shows pages 2–4. Sign up to view the full content.

Certain factors add up to define “reasonable” o How dangerous is the activity? Greater danger means higher standard of care o Likelihood What is likelihood of something happens? High likelihood means high standard of care Can interact with how dangerous activity is o Capacity Lower capacity means higher standard of care Field trip with small children has high standard of care o Children are not as aware of dangers of crossing streets Professor tells graduate students to meet him somewhere o Presumption that graduate students are adult enough to get from point A to point B Must look at these factors and analyze them Two people can argue different standard care, and both be right Must look at analysis o Did you meet standard of care (do you owe someone a standard of care)? If yes, and someone still got injured, you are not liable If no, then you are liable Jury decides that o They look back at the considerations that define what a reasonable standard of care is (law, judiciary, common sense)
Image of page 2

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

o Proximate cause The injury would not have occurred but for what you did Just because something happens after one event does not mean that the two events are related Must be able to show proximate cause o Foreseeability You are liable for natural and proximate damages that flow from your act If there is a car accident, you expect (foresee) that people in car will get injured Extraordinary events are not expected – can’t be liable for them Only responsible for those events that are foreseeable Only consider what sort of events are expected Juries represent plaintiff, defendant – they represent you Through common knowledge, they reach normal, expected decisions They apply community standards o Injury Can only show that harm that is reasonably foreseeable and expected Plaintiff must not only show that an injury happened, but they also must put the injury in context of something that is reasonable Plaintiff must show that injury was reasonable (you would expect such a harm to occur) o These five requirements are necessary for negligence This establishes ground rules for negligence, but once you get past those ground rules, then you get into the further aspects of negligence, which are messy o Generally, you do not have a duty to help someone even if it poses no harm to you o Slowly, people are trying to change this These tort rules are very old What courts tend to do know is look at specific categories, and determine that within a category, there are duties to act Dormitory example o
Image of page 3
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
  • Fall '08
  • Miller
  • Tort Law, intentional tort, Standard

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern