(Blank)
An obligation to obey a law, a legal obligation to another person who has corresponding right.
The thing speaks for itself. A reputable presumption that a person is negligent.
RES IPSA LOQUITOR
present where the defendant's conduct caused harm to the plaintiff
The limitation on the person to whom one owes the duty, often described in terms of reasonable forseeability.
SCOPE OF DUTY OF CARE
DUTY
BREACH
CAUSATION
DAMAGES
ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE
The defendant should have acted as a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have acted.
REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSON STANDARD OF CARE
The creation of danger invites rescue, and the original tortfeasor is liable for injury to the victim, and for additional injury created by the rescuer, along with injury to the rescuer.
RESCUE DOCTRINE
This test for actual cause will be satisfied, where but for the actions of the D, the plaintiff would not have been injured.
BUT FOR TEST
Where two D act separately, and both of their acts would be sufficient for actual cause, then both D will be liable.
SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST
Failure to take reasonable precautions to protect others from the risk of harm.
NEGLIGENCE
How a reasonable person with a similar disability would have done in similar circumstances.
STANDARD OF CARE FOR INDIVIDUAL WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITY
This exists where the defendant did not act to reasonably protect the plaintiff from foreseeable harm.
BREACH OF DUTY
Person whose injuries the tortfeasor could not reasonably have anticipated as a result of the tortfeasor's actions.
UNFORESEEABLE PLAINTIFF
Where there are multiple D and acts, the burden of proof is on a D to show that they did not cause an injury to the plaintiff.
MULTIPLE CAUSES
An injury that a reasonably prudent person should have anticipated
FORESEEABLE INJURY
No duty to help strangers UNLESS your tort caused peril OR you started helping
AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO ACT
A plaintiff may establish the defendant's duty and its breach, if the plaintiff can show that the defendant violated a safety statue/regulation/ordinance.
NEGLIGENCE PER SE
determining negligence based on what a reasonable person would have done in the same or similar circumstances
A D is only liable for consequences which are reasonably foreseeable at the time of plaintiff's injury, and which are not too remote or improbable.
PROXIMATE CAUSATION
An imaginary individual who is expected to behave reasonably under a given set of circumstances to avoid harming others.
owner is aware that children will reasonably stop and explore because of an artificial and dangerous condition on the owner's property, that the children would thereby be presented with an unreasonable risk of serious injury, and where such a young child would not recognize a dangerous situation due to their age, the owner of the property will be held to a standard of care that is sufficient to stop children from stopping and exploring.
ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE
Where direct evidence of an accident remains unclear, and there is little direct evidence regarding the scenario of an injury, circumstantial evidence relating to the accident may create an inference of the D negligence. The plaintiff must show that the harm would not have taken place without the D negligence, that the instrumentality of harm was in exclusive control of the D, and that the harm was not due to the actions of the plaintiff. Res ipsa loquitur is often used in products liability situations.
RES IPSA LOQUITOR
Such as a Guest, is entitled to a warning of hidden dangers.
LICENSEE
someone on the property as of the right because it is a public place or a business open to the public. The owner has a duty of reasonable care to this person
INVITEE
The standard of reasonable care used in negligence cases involving defendant's with special skills and knowledge.
PROFESSIONAL STANDARD OF CARE