Business Law Chapter 9

actual cause

the determination that the defendant's breach of duty resulted directly in the plaintiff's injury

duty

the standard of care a reasonable person owes another

good Samaritan statutes

these attempt to encourage selfless and courageous behavior by removing the threat of liability

res ipsa loquitur

this doctrine allows the judge or jury to infer that more likely than not, the defendant's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's harm, even though there is no direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due care

last chance clear doctrine

this 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

damages

a compensable loss suffered by the plaintiff

contributory negligence

a defense that applies in cases in which the defendant and the plaintiff were both negligent, if the defendant successfully proves negligence from the plaintiff, no matter how slight their negligence is, the plaintiff will be denied any recovery of damages

negligence per se

a doctrine that 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

reasonable person standard

a measurement of the way members of society expect an individual to act in a given situation

dram shop acts

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

unfortunate accident

an accident that simply could not be avoided, even with reasonable care

gross negligence

an action committed with extreme reckless disregard for the property or life of another person

superseding cause

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

negligence

behavior that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others

breach of duty

failure to live up to the standard of care

assumption of risk

in this defense, a defendant must prove that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm the defendant caused (expressed and implied)

pure comparative negligence

in this defense, the court determines the percentage of fault of the defendant, the defendant is that liable for that percentage of the plaintiff's damages

modified comparative negligence

in this defense, the defendant must be more than 50 percent at fault before the plaintiff can recover

strict liability

law that holds an individual liable without fault

proximate cause

refers to the extent to which, as a matter of policy, a defendant may be held liable for the consequences of his actions