Negligence

1
Negligence
2

• Causation
• ----a close causal connection between________
  and ________
• (Ds conduct / Ps injury)
• Causation has two categories
• ________ and ________.
• (cause in fact/ proximate cause)

3

• The causation in fact----actual cause
• If an injury would not have occurred without the
  defendants act, then there is causation in fact,
  which can usually be determined by the use of the
  but for test
• A but for test(to determine the existence of
  actual cause)
• The defendants conduct is the actual cause
  of the plaintiffs injury if that injury would
  not have occurred but for the defendants breach
  of duty.

4

• (2)proximate cause
• The courts have recognized that a negligent
  person should not necessarily be responsible for
  every injury actually caused by her negligence.
• This idea of placing some legal limit on a
  negligent defendants liability for the
  consequences of her actions is called proximate
  cause. Courts often say that a negligent
  defendant is liable only for the proximate
  results of her conduct.
• Since the Palsgraf case, the courts have used
  foreseeability as the test for proximate cause.

5

• (3) actual cause/ proximate cause
• Actual cause----causation in fact
• proximate cause----legal cause, which is a
  question not of fact, but of law and social
  policy.
• Although a defendants conduct may have been the
  actual cause of a particular plaintiffs injury,
  she is liable only if her conduct was also the
  proximate (legal) cause of that injury.

6

• (4) Superseding causes
• In some cases an intervening force occurring
  after a defendants negligence may play a
  significant role in bringing about a particular
  plaintiffs injury. A superseding intervening
  force may break the connection between a wrongful
  act and injury to another.
• When should an intervening force relieve a
  negligent defendant from liability?
• A. A high wind may spring up and this causes a
  fire set by Davis to spread and damage Parkers
  property. Is Davis liable for the damage to
  Parkers property?

7

• B. Dalton negligently starts a fire that causes
  injury to several persons. The driver of an
  ambulance summoned to the scene to aid the
  injured has been drinking on duty and , as a
  result, loses control of his ambulance and runs
  up onto a sidewalk, injuring several pedestrians.
  Is Dalton responsible for the pedestrians
  injuries?
• ANALYSIS
• A. If the intervening force is a foreseeable one,
  it will not relieve the defendant from liability.
  
• Yes. Davis is liable for the damage to
  Parkers property.

8

• B. If the intervening force that contributes to
  the plaintiffs injury is unforeseeable , most
  courts hold that it is a superseding or
  intervening cause that relieves the defendant
  from any liability for negligence.
• No. Dalton is not responsible for the
  pedestrians injuries.

9

• Actual / proximate / superseding cause
• Negligent actual cause Injuries
• conduct (ABC)
• Negligent Proximate cause Injuries
• conduct Foreseeablility (AB)
• Negligent Intervening force Injuries
• conduct Superseding cause
• (foreseeablility)

10

• 6. Defenses to negligence
• (1) Stevens voluntarily goes for a ride in
  Markleys car , even though Markley has told him
  that her brakes are not working properly. Could
  Stevens ask for damages if there is an accident?
• assumption of risk Stevens has voluntarily
  assumed the risk of injury as a result of the
  cars defective brakes.

11

• (2) If Durban steps into the path of Prestons
  speeding car without first checking to see
  whether any cars are coming, could Preston ask
  for any recovery against Durban?
• The doctrine of contributory negligence provides
  that plaintiffs who fail to exercise reasonable
  care for their own safety are totally barred from
  any recovery if their contributory negligence is
  a substantial factor in producing their injury.

12

• (3) Durban pulls into the path of prestons
  speeding car without looking, causing an
  accident. When Preston files suit to recover for
  the damage, Durban argues that the fact that
  Preston was speeding amounts to contributory
  negligence. If Preston can convince the court
  that the accident could have been avoided if
  Durban had looked before puling onto the highway,
  she has a good chance of overcoming Durbans
  contributory negligence defense.

13

• A contributorily negligence plaintiff may be
  able to overcome an valid contributory negligence
  defense by arguing that the defendant had the
  last clear chance to avoid harm. The doctrine of
  last clear chance focused on who is last at fault
  in time.

14

• (4)Dunne negligently injuries Porter and Porter
  suffers 10,000 in damages. A jury, however,
  determines that Porter was 20 percent at fault.
  Porter could recover only 8,000 from Dunne.
• But what if Porter is determined to be 60 at
  fault?
• Under a comparative negligence system, courts
  seek to determine the relative fault of the
  parties to a negligence action and award damages
  in proportion to the degree of fault determined.

15

• But what if Porter is determined to be 60 at
  fault?
• The results vary depending on whether the
  state has adopted a pure or a mixed comparative
  fault system.
• Under a pure comparative fault system, plaintiff
  are allowed to recover a portion of their damages
  even if they are more at fault than the
  defendant.
• Under a mixed system, plaintiff who are as much
  at fault as, or more at fault than, the defendant
  are denied any recovery.