5) The General Duty of Care in Negligence

Rescuers

A rescuer is a foreseeable plaintiff when the defendant negligently put themselves or a third person in peril (danger invites rescue). [even if the rescuer is far away at the start of the danger] Firefighter's Rule Firefighters and police officers are barred by the "firefighter's rule" from recovering for injuries caused by the inherent risks of their jobs.

Intended Beneficiaries of Economic Transactions

A third party for whose economic benefit a legal or business transaction was made (for example, a beneficiary of a will) may be a foreseeable plaintiff.

Basic SOC - The Reasonably Prudent Person

All persons owe a duty to behave with the same care as a hypothetical reasonably prudent person in the conduct of their activities to avoid injuring foreseeable victims. The reasonably prudent person standard is an objective standard, measured against what the average person would do. A defendant's mental deficiencies and inexperience are not taken into account (in other words, low intelligence is no excuse). - no allowances for D's shortcomings - objective standard Example: D stores gas-soaked rags in his garage in the summer, which is dangerous. A fire starts and burns the garage of P, his next-door neighbor. P sues D for damages. D truthfully claims that he didn't know storing rags like that was dangerous. It doesn't matter, D is still liable.

RPP Standard Exception for Physical Characteristics Where Relevant

The "reasonably prudent person" is considered to have the same physical characteristics as the defendant if those physical characteristics are relevant to the claim (but remember, one is expected to know one's physical abilities and to exercise the care of a person with such knowledge— for example, a blind person should act as a reasonably prudent person who cannot see and not attempt to, for instance, drive a car).

RPP Standard Exception for Superior Skill or Knowledge

While the reasonably prudent person standard sets a minimum level of care, a defendant who has knowledge or experience superior to that of an average person is required to exercise that experience. Professional race car driver in a skid.

Duty of Care Owed Only to Foreseeable Plaintiffs

A duty of care is owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs—the class of persons who were foreseeably endangered by the defendant's negligent conduct. Unforeseeable victims will always lose negligence lawsuits. Example: An employee of D negligently aided a passenger boarding a train, causing the passenger to drop a package. The package exploded, causing a scale a substantial distance away to fall on a second passenger waiting on the platform. The second passenger can't recover because a reasonable person would not have foreseen a risk of injury to her under the circumstances; in other words, she wasn't located in a foreseeable "zone of danger." The zone of danger depends on the situation. Juggling nuclear warheads vs. texting and walking. Physical scope of ZOD varies depending on activity.

Prenatal Injuries

A duty of care is owed to a viable fetus. In cases of failure to diagnose a congenital defect or properly perform a contraceptive procedure, the child may not recover for "wrongful life," but the parents may recover damages in a "wrongful birth" or "wrongful pregnancy" action for any additional medical expenses and for pain and suffering from labor; ordinary child-rearing expenses, however, cannot be recovered.

The Rules that Govern Duty

Duty: primarily found in law, case law, statutes. Whereas, breach is largely fact-specific. Causation: logic and policy Damages: facts and law

Hypo: D owns and manages an apartment building in an upscale and generally safe neighborhood of a large city. There is a garage that is part of the apartment building and a door that leads from the garage out to the street. The door is designed to be opened only from the inside so you can exit out to the street, but it is not supposed to be opened from the street. However, D unreasonably failed to maintain the door. As a result, the door was able to be opened from the street side. One evening P, who does not live in the building, is walking down the street when she is accosted by a mugger. The mugger, not wanting to commit a crime in plain view on the street, tries the door and is able to open it. He drags P through the door and into D's apartment garage where he robs her, and then flees. P sues D for negligence, citing their poor maintenance of the garage door. Did D owe P a duty of care?

No, she was not owed a duty of care bc she was not in the ZOD and not a foreseeable victim. The only foreseeable victims here are tenants of the building.

prima facie elements of negligence

The elements of a prima facie case of negligence are: 1) A duty on the part of the defendant to conform to a specific standard of conduct for protection of the plaintiff against an unreasonable risk of injury 2) A breach of that duty by the defendant 3) The breach is the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury 4) Damages

A duty of care is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs. If the defendant's conduct creates an unreasonable risk of injury to persons in the position of the plaintiff, the general duty of care extends from the defendant to the plaintiff. The extent of the duty is determined by the applicable standard of care. Therefore, when confronted with a negligence question, you should always ask:

To whom do you owe a duty? What is the applicable standard of care?