Negligence

Front 1

4 Elements of Cause of Action

Back 1

1) Duty- to use reasonable care
2) Breach of Duty- a failure to conform to the required standard
3) Causation-a reasonable close causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury.
4) Damage-actual loss or damage resulting to the interests of another

Front 2

Demurrer

Back 2

The assertion that the opposing party's pleadings are insufficient and the the demurring party should not be made to answer.

Front 3

Negligence

Back 3

Conduct falling below the standard of care that a reasonable person would demonstrate under similar conditions.

Front 4

Reasonable Person Standard

Back 4

The standard of care exercised by a hypothetical person who possesses the intelligence, education, knowledge, attention, and judgment required by society of its members when governing behavior; the standard applies to a person's judgment when determining breach of a duty under the theory of negligence.

Front 5

Proximate Cause

Back 5

The natural sequence of events without which an injury would not have been sustained.

Front 6

Foreseeability of Harm

Back 6

An inquiry into the relatedness of events that contributed to the plaintiffs injury; whether the harm was foreseeable determines whether the tortfeasor's conduct was the proximate cause of the injury.

Front 7

Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

Back 7

The assignment of liability to an owner or occupier of land who permits a dangerous instrumentality to remain on the property , knowing that it is likely to attract children who have access to it, and who fails to take reasonable steps to prevent such injury.

Front 8

Duty of Care

Back 8

A principle of negligence requiring an individual to act in such a manner as to avoid injury to a person to whom he or she owes an obligatory duty.

Front 9

Turntable Doctrine

Back 9

Requires persons who maintain a condition on their premises which is likely to attract children to take precautions as would a reasonably prudent person to prevent injury.

Front 10

3 Factors to Degree of Care Results

Back 10

1) The likelihood his conduct will injure others
2) The seriousness of injury if it happens
3) The interest sacrificed to avoid the risk.

Front 11

Case Primae Impressions

Back 11

A new case that has no directly applicable precedent and must be decided entirely by reason as distinguished from authority.

Front 12

Rule Nisi

Back 12

Motion by one party to make a final ruling against the opponent, unless the opponent can show cause as to why such ruling should not be ordered.

Front 13

Prima Facie Case

Back 13

An action where the plaintiff introduces sufficient evidence to submit the issue to the judge or jury for determination.

Front 14

Reasonable Man Standard

Back 14

A hypothetical person whose judgment represents the standard to which society requires its members to act in their private affairs and in their dealings with others.

Front 15

Respondent Superior

Back 15

Rule that the principal is responsible for tortious acts committed by its agents in the scope of agency or authority.

Front 16

Standard of Care

Back 16

A uniform degree of behavior against which a person's conduct can be measured when determining liability in negligence cases.

Front 17

Professional Standard of Care

Back 17

That degree of care as reasonable persons in the particular profession would exercise.

Front 18

Statute of limitations

Back 18

A law prescribing the period in which a legal action may be commenced.

Front 19

Involuntary Nonsuit

Back 19

The terminations of a case without prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to make out a case.

Front 20

Scintilla

Back 20

Doctrine whereby if there is the least bit of evidence regarding a material question of fact then that issue should be left for determination by the jury.

Front 21

Dictum

Back 21

Statement by a judge in a legal opinion that is not necessary for the resolution of the action.

Front 22

Doctrine of Informed Consent

Back 22

Consent to a particular occurrence requiring full notification as to the consequence of that consent.

Front 23

Duty to Disclose

Back 23

The duty owed by a fiduciary to reveal those facts that have a material effect on the interests of the party that must be informed.

Front 24

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Back 24

The failure of a fiduciary to observe the standard of care exercised by professional's or of similar education or experience.

Front 25

Contributory Negligence

Back 25

Behavior on the part of an injured plaintiff falling below the standard of ordinary care that contributes to the defendants negligence, resulting in the plaintiffs injury.

Front 26

Negligence Per Se

Back 26

Conduct amounting to negligence as a matter of law because it is either contrary to ordinary prudence or it is in violation of statute.

Front 27

Dram Shop Act

Back 27

Law that imposes liability upon the seller of alcoholic beverages for injuries to a third party resulting from the intoxication of the buyer.

Front 28

A Fortiori

Back 28

A method of reasoning whereby if one fact is true then a lesser fact, which is necessarily encompassed by the greater fact, must also be true.

Front 29

Statutory Duty

Back 29

An obligation owed by one individual to another pursuant to a particular statute.

Front 30

Irrebuttable Presumption

Back 30

A rule of law, inferred from the existence of a particular set of facts, that is not subject to dispute.

Front 31

Burden of Proof

Back 31

The duty of a party to introduce evidence to support a fact that is in dispute in an action.

Front 32

Circumstantial evidence

Back 32

Evidence that, though not directly observed, supports the inference of principal facts.

Front 33

Remand

Back 33

To send back for additional scrutiny or deliberation

Front 34

Constructive notice

Back 34

knowledge of a fact that is imputed to an individual who was under a duty to inquire and who could have learned of the fact through the exercise of reasonable notice.

Front 35

Dangerous condition

Back 35

a condition of property that poses a reasonably foreseeable substantial risk of injury giving rise to liability for a public entity.

Front 36

Preponderance of the evidence

Back 36

A standard of proof requiring the trier of fact to determine whether the fact sought to be established is more probable then not.

Front 37

Reasonable foreseeability

Back 37

a reasonable expectation that an act or omission would result in injury.

Front 38

actual notice

Back 38

the direct communication of information to a person.

Front 39

Res Ipsa Loquittur

Back 39

A rule of law giving rise to an inference of negligence where the instrument inflicting the injury is in the exclusive control of the defendant and where such harm could not ordinarily result in the absence of negligence.

Front 40

Rule Nisi

Back 40

Motion by one party to make a final ruling against the opponent, unless the opponent can show cause as to why such ruling should not be ordered.

Front 41

Direct Proof

Back 41

proof derived from persons who actually observed the event or subject at issue.

Front 42

Exclusive Control Rule

Back 42

Necessary element of res ipsa loquitor doctrine that the defendant have total control of the instrument that inflicted the injury.

Front 43

Inference

Back 43

A deduction from established facts

Front 44

Post Hoc

Back 44

After this moment

Front 45

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Back 45

The doctrine that because an occurrence followed a prior occurrence, it must have been the result of the prior occurrence.

Front 46

Proximate Cause

Back 46

The natural sequence of events without which an injury would not have been sustained.

Front 47

Cause in Fact

Back 47

the event without which an injury would not have been incurred.

Front 48

Summary judgment

Back 48

Judgment rendered by a court in response to a motion by one of the parties, claiming that the lack of a question of material fact in respect to an issue warrants disposition of the issue without consideration by the jury.

Front 49

Causation

Back 49

The aggregate effect of proceeding events that bring about a tortious result; the causal connection between the actions of a tortfeasor and the injury that follows.

Front 50

Substantial factor test

Back 50

in determining whether one of several joint acts was the proximate cause of an injury for purposes of tort liability, the inquiry is whether the act or omission was a substantial factor in causing the damage and whether the damage was the direct or probable result of the act or omission.