Torts Final

Front 1

Elements of NEGLIGENCE

Back 1

1) Duty
2) Breach
3) Factual Cause
4) Proximate Cause
5) Harm

Hint 1

The prima facie case of a negligence suit requires that the plaintiff show the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, and that breach factually and proximately caused harm to the plaintiff's person or property.

Front 2

DUTY Rule (Negligence)

Back 2

Duty of care - RPP would do under the SCC to AVOID/MINIMIZE the risk of FORESEEABLE HARM to FORESEEABLE PLAINTIFFS.
Foreseeable plaintiff - within the ZONE OF DANGER created by the D's breaching conduct
- determined by the time, distance, and relationship, if relevant

Hint 2

Generally, the duty of care in a negligence case is what a reasonably prudent person would do under the same or similar circumstances to avoid or minimize the risk of foreseeable harm to foreseeable plaintiffs. To be a foreseeable plaintiff, the plaintiff must be within the zone of danger created by the defendant's breaching conduct. To determine whether the plaintiff is within the zone of danger, factors such as time, distance, and relationship are considered, if relevant.

Front 3

Breach Rule

Back 3

Duty - fails to act as RPP under SCC.
Risk Utility from Carroll Towing - balance BURDEN of preventing harm against GRAVITY and LIKELIHOOD of harm. B < G+L = breach, B > G+L = no breach

Hint 3

One breaches the general duty of care when one fails to act as a reasonably prudent person under same or similar circumstances. In determining breach, courts use the risk-utility rule from Carroll Towing, which balances the burden of preventing the harm against the likelihood and gravity of harm. If the burden is less than the gravity and harm, the defendant has breached his duty to the plaintiff. If the burden is greater than the gravity and harm, the defendant has not breached.