Torts-Negligence Breach

Card Set Information

Author:
Anonymous
ID:
54317
Filename:
Torts-Negligence Breach
Updated:
2010-12-08 10:44:37
Tags:
Torts Negligence Breach
Folders:

Description:
Torts-Negligence Breach
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user Anonymous on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. 3 Approaches to interpret the violation of a (state) statute
    • I) Negligence per se— Statutory violation deemed negligent on
    • its face and as a matter of law; conclusive presumption of duty and breach

    • II) Evidence of Negligence (Minority)—Violation of a statute can
    • be offered as evidence for negligence but the fact finder determines if a breach
    • of duty truly occurred and may
    • accept or reject evidence.

    • III) Rebuttable Presumption—When violation of a statute occurs, negligence per se is presumed and considered to be a prima facie case of
    • negligence but this presumption is rebuttable.

    Excused Violations

    • HEKID
    • -greater risk of harm
    • -incapacity
    • -neither knows nor should know
    • -unable after reasonable diligence to comply
    • -confronted by an emergency
  2. Excused violations:
    HEKID

    • -greater risk of harm
    • --confronted by an emergency
    • -neither knows nor should know
    • -incapacity
    • -unable after reasonable diligence to comply
  3. What is the standard of duty and breach for federal law?
    There is not negligence per se in federal law!!!
  4. 3 ways to prove negligence claim (breach):
    • I) Direct Evidence (Actual Knowledge)—evidence that is based on personal observation or knowledge and that, if true, proves a fact
    • without inference or presumption.

    Circumstantial Evidence (Constructive Knowledge)—evidence based on inference and not personal knowledge or observation.

    Res Ipsa Loquitur (RIL)—“the thing speaks for itself”—the occurrence of event itself warrants an inference that the defendant was negligent.

    • Hierarchy of ways to
    • prove negligence:
    • 1.
    • Direct Evidence
    • 2.
    • Const. Evidence
    • 3.
    • Res Ispa
  5. Res Ipsa Loquitur
    Res Ipsa Loquitur (RIL)—“the thing speaks for itself”—the occurrence of event itself warrants an inference that the defendant was negligent.



    (1) Plaintiff must show 3 elements

    • (a) Unusual occurrence that does not occur
    • without negligence of someone.

    • (i) Unusual Occurrence—anything
    • that happens outside normal course of
    • business

    • (b) Instrument of harm was
    • under the defendant’s exclusive
    • control and right of control at the time negligence took place. Defendant more likely than not caused the injury.

    (i) The plaintiff is not required to eliminate with certainty all other possible causes or inferences.

    (c) P did not contribute/cause negligence
  6. GR for RIL for multiple D
    • G.R.—Res Ipsa Loquitor does not
    • apply because plaintiff cannot show one person was more likely than not the person who caused the injury. (IE: Turkey Dinner-- food poisoning)

    (b) Exception—Medical Context

    • (i) Multiple health care providers
    • working together may be held liable if the doctors both oversaw the surgery and
    • the doctors both had a duty.

    • (ii) Apply when P has no direct
    • evidence (esp. if unconscious)

    (iii)Hospital/medical must eliminate all parties as possible source of injury—this shifts the burden to each defendant to prove that they were not exercising control
  7. Tests for Cause in fact:
    But for

    substantial factor test

    summer test

    market share test

    loss of chance

    joint and several liability

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview