Torts

Front 1

To whom is a duty owed?

Back 1

A duty of reasonable care is owed only to those who could be reasonably injured by the D's conduct.

Front 2

Cardozo defined a duty as:

Back 2

"the risks reasonably to be precieved define the duty to be obeyed."

Front 3

For a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove: (DIP)

Back 3

D- a DUTY to excercise reasonable care was owed to the injured plaintiff and that duty was breached by the defendant.
I-plaintiff or plaintiff's property was physically INJURED.
P- the plaintiff's injuries were PROXIMATELY caused by the defendant's breach of duty.

Front 4

Prima facie case

Back 4

1. Duty on the part of D to conform to a specific standard of conduct for protection of P against unreasonable risk of injury;

2. Breach of that duty by D;

3. The Breach is the actual proximate cause

4. Damage

Front 5

There is no legal duty of care owed to:

Back 5

passers by who are dragged onto the owner's land

motorists by golphers, unless the person is in the intended line of flight

a child not yet conceived.

by a life insurance company who knows of a life threatening medical condition

no civil or criminal duty owed by an uninvolved bystander to aid a person in peril UNLESS the Defendant created the peril.

no duty is owed by owners of a collapsed building to nearby business for economic harm caused by negligent collapse of the owner's building

Front 6

Is there is duty to control the conduct of 3rd persons to prevent them from causing injury to others?

Back 6

No, unless the defendant had the authority to control the conduct of the tortfeasor. (employer-employee but NOT employer-independent contractor; parent-child)

Front 7

NY Good Samaritan law

Back 7

NY extends good samaritan protection against anyone who voluntarily and without expectation of monetary compensation renders emergency medical assistance at the scene of an accident.

Front 8

Is a duty owed for D's ommission (non-feasance?

Back 8

Generally no, but if the non-feasance causes or increases the plaintiff's injuries, a duty will be imposed on defendant.

Front 9

Insanity is not a defense in

Back 9

Intentional or negligent torts

Front 10

Are insane and intoxicated persons liable for injuries inflicted?

Back 10

Yes

Front 11

Can punitive damages be awarded for negligence?

Back 11

No.

Front 12

In NY, has punitive damages ever been sustained in a medical malpractice case?

Back 12

No.

Front 13

What are punitive damages used to accomplish?

Back 13

Punitive damages are awarded to make a example out of the defendant and deter others from similar conduct.

Front 14

Factual Causation

Back 14

encompasses all results flowing from a defendant's conduct.

Front 15

Proximate Cause

Back 15

requires a close causal connection between the defendant's negligent conduct and the plaintiff's injury.

Front 16

Five types of Causation are:

Back 16

1.factual causation
2.cause in fact
3.legal cause
4.independent intervening cause (aka as superceding cause)
4.proximate cause
5.successive cause

Front 17

In order to be liable for proximate cause the defendant's negligent conduct must have been:

Back 17

a SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR in causing the plaintiff's injury.

Front 18

Concurrent Cause

Back 18

An injury may have more than one proximate cause. A plaintiff need only offer sufficient eveidence from which a jury may conclude that it was more probable than not that the injury was proximately caused (in whole or in part) by defendant.