Business Law-Test #2-Chapter 7

Assumption of risk

A plaintiff who voluntarily enters into a risky situation, knowing the risk involved, will not be allowed to recover. The requirements of this defense are 1) knowledge of the risk and 2) voluntarily assumption of the risk.

Contributory negligence

A plaintiff who was also negligent (failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care) could not recover anything from the defendant. Under this rule, no matter how insignificant the plaintiff's negligence was relative to the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff would be precluded from recovering any damages.

Dram shop acts

A tavern owner or bartender may be held liable for injuries caused by a person who become intoxicated when served by the bartender.

Superseding cause

An unforeseeable intervening event may break the causal connection between a wrongful act and an injury to another. It relieves a defendant of liability for injuries caused by the intervening event.

Malpractice

Professional negligence. If a professional violates his or her duty of care towards a client.

Business Invitees

Retailers and others firms that explicitly or implicitly invite persons to come onto their premises are usually charged with a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect these business invitees.

Reasonable person standard

Society's judgment of how an ordinarily prudent person should act. If the so-called erasable person existed, he or she would be careful, conscientious, even tempered, and honest. Required to exercise a reasonable standard of care in their activities.

Good Samaritan statues

Someone who is aided voluntarily by another cannot turn around and sue the "Good Samaritan" for negligence. They were passed largely to protect physicians and medical personnel who volunteer their services in emergency situations to those in need.

Strict liability/Liability with a fault

Under this doctrine, a person who engages in certain activities can be held responsible for any harm that results to others even if the person used the utmost care.

Negligence

When someone suffers injury because of another's failure to live up to a required duty of care. The tortfeasor neither wishes to bring about the consequences of the act nor believes that they will occur.

Comparative negligence

Enables both the plaintiff's and the defendant;s negligence to be computed and the liability for damages distributed accordingly.

Proximate Cause

Exists when the connection between an act and an injury is strong enough to justify imposing liability. Asks whether the injuries sustained were foreseeable or too remotely connected to the incident to trigger liability.

Causation in fact

If the injury would not have occurred without the defendant's act, then there is causation in fact. Can be determined by use of the but for test:"but for" the wrongful act, the injury would not have occurred.

Negligence per se

May occur if an individual violates a statue or an ordinance providing for a criminal penalty and that violation causes another to be injured.

Duty of Care

Arises from the notion that if we are to live in society with other people, some actions can be tolerated and some cannot, and some actions are reasonable and some are not. People are free to act as they please so long as these actions do not infringe on the interests of others. When someone fails to comply with the duty to exercise reasonable care, a potentially tortious act may have been committed.

Res ipsa loquitur

The presumption of the defendant's negligence. "The facts speak for themselves." Applied only when the even creating the damage or injury is one that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence.