Business Law Chapter 8 Negligence

Front 1

Breach of Duty of Care: Definition of negligence

Back 1

conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unrasonable risk of harm

Front 2

Breach of Duty of Care: Reasonable person standard

Back 2

degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise in a given situation

Front 3

Breach of Duty of Care: Children: resonable person

Back 3

must conform to conduct of a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience

Front 4

Breach of Duty of Care: Physical Disability: reasonable person

Back 4

a disabled person's conduct must conform to that of a reasonable person under like disability

Front 5

Breach of Duty of Care: Mental Deficiency: reasonable person

Back 5

a mentally deficient person is held to the reasonable person standard

Front 6

Breach of Duty of Care: Superior skill or Knowledge: reasonable person

Back 6

professionals must exercise the same care and skill normally possessed by memebers of their profession

Front 7

Breach of Duty of Care: Emergencies: resonable person

Back 7

the reasonable person standard applies, but the emergency is considered part of the circumstances

Front 8

Breach of Duty of Care: Violation of state: reasonable person

Back 8

if the statute applies, the violation is negligence per se

Front 9

Breach of Duty of Care: Duty to act

Back 9

except in special circumstances, no one is required to aid another in peril

Front 10

Breach of Duty of Care: Duty to trespassers: Duties of possessors of land

Back 10

not to injure intentionally

Front 11

Breach of Duty of Care: Duty to Licensees: Duties of possessors of land

Back 11

to warn of known dangerous conditions licensees are unlikely to discover for themselves

Front 12

Breach of Duty of Care: Duty to invitees: Duties of possessors of land

Back 12

to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against dangerous conditions possessor should know of but invitees are unlikely to discover

Front 13

Breach of Duty of Care: Res Ipsa Loquitur

Back 13

permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation

Front 14

Proximate Cause: Causation in Fact

Back 14

the defendent's conduct was the actual cause of, or a substantial factor in causing the injury

Front 15

Proximate Cause: Unforseeable consequences: Limitatations on causation in fact

Back 15

no liability if defendant could not reasonably have anticipated injuring the plaintiff or a class of persons to which the plaintiff belongs

Front 16

Proximate Cause: Superseding Causes: Limitatations on causation in fact

Back 16

an intervening act that relieves the defendant of liability

Front 17

Injury: Harm to Legally Protected Interest

Back 17

courts determine which interests are protected from negligent interference

Front 18

Injury: Burden of Proof

Back 18

plaintiff must prove that defendent's negligent conduct caused harm to legally protected interest

Front 19

Defenses to Negligence: Contributory Negligence

Back 19

failure of plaintiff to exercise reasonable care for his own protection, which in a few states prevents the plaintiff from revovering anything

Front 20

Defenses to Negligence: Comparitive Negligence

Back 20

damages are divided between the parties in proportion to their degree of negligence; applies to most states

Front 21

Defenses to Negligence: Assumtion of Risk

Back 21

plaintiff's express consent to encounter a known danger, some states still apply implied assumtion of risk

Front 22

Activities giving rise to strict liability: Definition of Strict Liability

Back 22

liability for nonintentional and nonnegligent conduct

Front 23

Activities giving rise to strict liability:Abnormally Dangerous Activities

Back 23

involve a hogh degree of serious harm and are not matters of common usage

Front 24

Activities giving rise to strict liability: Keeping of animals

Back 24

strict liability is imposed for wild anilmals and usually for trespassing domestic animals

Front 25

Activities giving rise to strict liability: Product liability

Back 25

imposed upon manufactures and merchants who sell goods in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or customer

Front 26

Defenses to Strict Liability: Contributory Negligence

Back 26

is not a defense to strict liability

Front 27

Defenses to Strict Liability: Comparitive Negligence

Back 27

most states apply this doctine to products liability cases

Front 28

Defenses to Strict Liability: Assumtion of Risk

Back 28

is a defense to an action based upon strict liability