Business law Chapter 9

Duty to others

In most situations, law holds that individuals have no duty to rescue strangers from perilous situations

Unfortunate Accident

incident that simply couldn't be avoided, even with reasonable care not negligence

Negligence per se

"negligence in or of itself" applies to cases in which the defendant has violated a statute enacted to prevent a certain type of harm from befalling a specific group to which the plaintiff belongs The plaintiff has to then show that this violation led to the plaintiff's harm as proof of negligence Ex. If a minor drinks and drives and kills someone, the person who sold the alcohol to the minor established negligence per se

Res Ipsa Loquitur

"the thing speaks for itself" used when there's no direct evidence plaintiff uses this doctrine to allow the judge or jury to infer that more likely than not, the defendant's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's harm

actual cause

(cause in fact) the determination that the plaintiff's harm was a direct result of the defendant's breach of duty To determine actual cause, courts ask if the plaintiff would have been injured if the defendant had fulfilled their duty Referred to as "but-for" causation

Elements of Causation Plaintiff must prove for breach of duty (2)

1. Actual Cause 2. Proximate Cause

Defenses to Negligence

1. Contributory Negligence 2. Comparative Negligence

Plaintiff of Negligence must prove: (4)

1. Duty 2. Breach of duty 3. Causation: 4. Damages

Types of Assumption of the Risk (2)

1. Express Assumption of the Risk: occurs when the plaintiff expressly agrees (usually in a written contract) to assume the risk posed by the defendant's behavior 2. Implied Assumption of the Risk: plaintiff implicitly assumed a known risk

questions to consider to determine whether a reasonable person would have owed a duty to others (4)

1. How likely was it that the harm would occur? 2. How serious was the harm? 3. How socially beneficial was the defendant's conduct that posed the risk of harm? 4. What costs would have been necessary to reduce the risk of harm?

Conditions for Strict Liability (3)

1. Involves a risk of serious harm to people or property 2. Is so inherently dangerous that it can't ever be safely undertaken, and 3. Is not usually performed in the immediate community

Defendant to Contributory Negligence must prove that (2)

1. Plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm 2. Plaintiff's failure was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injury Ex. A plaintiff involved in a car accident failed to wear their seat belt

doctrines that have been adopted by courts to aid plaintiffs in establishing negligence claims (2)

1. Res Ipsa Loquitur 2. Negligence Per Se

Requirements for Res Ipsa Loquitur (3)

1. The event was a kind that ordinarily doesn't occur in the absence of negligence 2. Other responsible causes, including the conduct of third parties and the plaintiff, have been sufficiently eliminated 3. Indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendant's duty to the plaintiff o These 3 things aren't conclusive as a finding of negligence, but once proven the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove he was not negligent- the defendants best response to this doctrine would be to demonstrate other possible causes

Pure Comparative Negligence

Court determines the percentage of fault of the defendant, the defendant is then liable for that percentage of the plaintiff's damage

Those who have a duty to others

Employers have a special duty to protect their employees from dangerous situations Landowners have a duty of care to protect individuals on their property Businesses have a duty of care to customers who enter business property Professionals who are serving in their professional capacity have a higher duty of care to clients then does an ordinary person

Strict Liability

Person engages in an activity that is so inherently dangerous that no amount of due care can make the activity safe, regardless of the degree of care used when undertaking the activity Ex. Dynamite blasting in a populated area

Damages for Negligence

a compensable loss suffered by the plaintiff Person can't bring an action in negligence seeking only nominal damages because the purpose of tort law is to compensate individuals who suffer injuries as a result of another's actions or inactions must seek compensatory damages

Gross Negligence

action committed with extreme reckless disregard for the property or life of another person Courts usually award punitive damages in these cases

Comparative Negligence

adopted because the last-clear-chance doctrine leaves many situations where an extremely careless can cause great deal of harm to a plaintiff who is barred from recovery due to minimal contributory negligence. Can be pure of modified

Dram Shop Acts

allow bartenders and bar owners to be held liable for injuries caused by individuals who become intoxicated at the bar

Last-clear-chance doctrine

allows the plaintiff to recover damages despite proof of contributory negligence as long as the defendant had a final clear opportunity to avoid the action that injured the plaintiff

Contributory Negligence

applies in cases in which the defendant and the plaintiff were both negligent If defendant can prove any contributory negligence, no matter how slight, the plaintiff will be denied any recovery of damages

Negligence

behavior that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others Involve the failure to exercise responsible care to protect another's person or property

Malpractice cases

clients who feel they have suffered damages as a result of a professional's breach of duty

Compensatory Damages

damages intended to reimburse a plaintiff for their losses

Assumption of the Risk

defendant must prove that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm the defendant caused It is difficult to established that the plaintiff actually assumed the harm they suffered; the type of injury suffered must be within the scope of the activity you assume

Breach of Duty

failure to live up to the standard of care Once plaintiff has established that the defendant owes her a duty of care, she must prove that the defendant's conduct violated that duty Ex. Taxi driver owes passengers a duty to obey traffic sings. If he runs a stop sign, that a breach of duty

Good Samaritan Statutes

hold that people in peril who receive voluntary aid from others can't hold those offering aid liable for negligence Attempt to encourage selfless and courageous behavior

Danger invites rescue doctrine

if your negligence causes harm to others, and bystanders trying to help those you harmed also end up injured, you are also held liable for their injuries

Punitive damages

imposed to punish the offender and deter others from committing similar offenses Rarely awarded by courts

"reasonable" person standard

measurement of the way members of society expect an individual to act in a given situation Used to determine the defendant's duty of care

Modified Comparative Negligence

same calculation as pure competitive negligence, except that the defendant must be more than 50% at fault before the plaintiff can recover

Duty

standard of care a reasonable person owes another Plaintiff must first establish that the defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff

Proximate cause

the extent to which, as a matter of policy, the defendant will be held liable for the consequences of his actions Mostly determined by foreseeability Proximate cause exists only when both the plaintiff and the plaintiff's damages were reasonably foreseeable at the time the defendant breached his duty to the plaintiff Palsgraf established this rule and most courts still follow it- weeds out random liability

Superseding Cause

unforeseeable event that interrupts the casual chain between the defendant's breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered