Duty
What is the general rule for duty?
Generally, there is no duty to act for the benefit of another
What does it mean to breach a duty owed?
The defendant failed to follow the "requisite standard of care"
What are the tests for actual (cause-in-fact) causation?
But-for test, where the harm would not have occurred "but for the defendant's actions"
substantial factor test, defendant's conduct must be a "substantial factor" in the harm sustained.
In this case, a therapist’s failure to warn a foreseeable victim created a new category of duty to third parties.
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California
What is res ipsa loquitur and when does it apply?
"The thing speaks for itself" and it applies when the event is one that ordinarily would not occur without negligence, defendant had control, and plaintiff didn’t contribute, it allows an inference of negligence
In Tarasoff, who did the therapist owe a duty to and why?
A duty to warn or protect foreseeable victims of a patient’s violent threats.
What are the different standards of care?
Reasonably Prudent Person, Child-Standard, Professional Standard, and Statutory Standard
True or False: A defendant can still be an actual cause of the harm even if others also contributed to the same injury.
True — more than one act can be a factual cause; tort law does not require the defendant to be the only cause.
This later case criticized Goodman, returning the breach question to the jury to decide what is “reasonable.”
Pokora v. Wabash Ry. Co.
1) Defendant supplies 3rd party with the chattel, 2) Defendant knew or should have known 3rd party would use chattel in unreasonable risk of harm; and 3) the harm resulted from the use of the chattel
Name five of the special relationships that establish a duty.
Carrier-Passenger, Teacher-Student, Parent-Child, Jailor-Prisoner, Employer-Employee, Innkeeper-guest, captains-crew
What is the Hand Formula?
Burden of the Precautions Untaken < The Probability of Harm multiplied by Actual Injury and Loss
What doctrine helps plaintiffs when the evidence shows that one of several negligent defendants caused the harm, but it’s impossible to prove which one did?
Alternative Liability
This case illustrates the “but-for” test failing because even if the defendant had acted differently, the same harm would have occurred — horses drowned anyway.
Sowles v. Moore
This case held that plaintiffs need not disprove every possible alternative cause, only show that the defendant’s negligence was the most reasonable explanation for the harm.
Ingersoll v. Liberty Bank
What are the four tests for foreseeability of criminal activity from Delta Tau Delta?
Specific Harms Test, Prior Similar Incidents Test, Totality of Circumstances Test, and Balancing Test
In Hagerman Construction v. Copeland, how did the court treat custom evidence?
Custom can be evidence of breach, but not conclusive; juries may find breach even if custom was followed (or vice versa)
What is the “substantial factor” test used for, and why do courts sometimes use it instead of the but-for test?
It’s used when multiple sufficient causes exist (like two fires or two negligent acts that each would cause the same harm). The test ensures both actors can be treated as actual causes.
In this hotel assault case, Judge Posner held no breach occurred because the plaintiff failed to show what additional safety steps would have prevented harm.
McCarty v. Pheasant Run
Industry Customs are an example of what?
Ways to analyze breach under the "reasonably prudent person" standard or professional standard of care.
What is the Landowner/Occupier Trichotomy?
Creates a duty for landowners/occupiers to trespassers, licensees, and invitees.
What is negligence per se and how does it affect negligence?
When an injury would have occurred even if the defendant hadn’t acted, what does that show?
The defendant’s act was not a but-for cause — the negligence didn’t make a difference in outcome.
This case shifted the burden of proof on causation to multiple negligent hunters, since only one’s bullet caused the harm.
Summers v. Tice
This exception to the no-duty rule arises when a defendant voluntarily begins to assist someone, but then stops in a way that leaves the person worse off.
Voluntary Aid