Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

26 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Elements of Negligence
(1) duty to use reasonable care
(2) breach of duty
(3) causation
(4) harm
Failure to do something that a reasonable person would do; doing something that a reasonable person would not do
Standard of Care in Negligence
what an ordinary reasonable person of ordinary prudence would/would not do under same or similar circumstances
Negligence standard of care for children
reasonable child of same age/experience
Negligence Standard for Mentally incompetent
Held to reasonable ordinary man standard, however, exception is when there is no prior notice of mental incompetence
Negligence Standard of care for professional
what ordinary reasonable person in same field would do
Informed Consent Doctrine, exceptions
physician must disclose adequate info about the material risks of operation and alternatives; some ct hold material risk to be one that is material to reasonable person, some say what is material to that patient; exceptions to necessary informed consent is when risks ought to be known by everyone, risks are known by that patient, when there is an emergency
Negligence per se
If D violates statute, and
(1) P is w/in class of persons statute designed to protect, (2) harm P suffered is harm statute designed to protect against, then violation of statute seen as proof of negligence
Exceptions to negligence per se, when D is not required to follow statute
(1) when D has no reason to know of violation
(2) when it is more dangerous to follow statute than violate it
(3) unable after reasonable diligence to comply
(4) emergency situation not of his own making
Res ipsa Loquitur
"the thing speaks for itself"; used when
(1) P has no knowledge of D's behavior
(2) seldom occurs w/out negligence
(3) item is under exclusive control of D,
(4) injury not due to P
Causation in fact
(1) But for test of causation; if that fails, use
(2) substantial factor test (concurrent causes)
Multiple Defendants:
(1) alternative liability, market share liability
But-for test
But for the negligence of the D, the accident would not have occurred
Alternative Liability
Join all possible defendants, all equally likely to have caused harm, put burden on each D to absolve themselves of liability
Market Share Liability
If all defendants joined,
(1) substantial share of market represented
(2) all used same formula
(3)all must be negligent
Proximate Cause
was consequence reasonably foreseeable? 1st, ask if there was an intervening cause
Intervening Cause
independent force which takes effect after D's negligence, and which contributes to that negligence in producing P's injury
Superseding Cause
Kind of intervening cause cutting off liability; if it is a different kind of intervention than D risks, it is a superseding cause
Types of intervening causes
(1) independent intervening cause
(2) Intentional, deliberate, malicious, criminal
(3) Rescuer, subsequent accident/illness/medical treatment- dependent intervenint cause
Independent Intervening Cause
D is liable if the type of harm is foreseeable, OR if unforeseeable intervening cause produces a foreseeable harm
Intentional, deliberate, malicious, criminal
D is not liable unless criminal intervening cause/conduct was foreseeable; must foresee crime in order to be held liable
Dependent intervening cause
Rescuer, subsequent accident/illness/medical treatment; ct likely to impose liability
What test to use if no intervening cause?
(1) Foreseeability
(2) Andrews Hindsight
(3) Direct Result (use but-for test)

In addition, some jurisdictions require that D must owe a duty to P, meaning P must be a foreseeable victim
Joint and Several Liability
if more than one person is a proximate cause of P's harm, and harm is indivisible, then each D is liable for the entire harm
Zone of Danger rule
If P was in zone of danger (risk of impact), P can recover for emotional distress due to worry over another person's injury IF other person was close relative and P can establish concern over 3rd person
Wrongful Death of Unborn Child- Recover?
Majority of states uphold a civil claim for wrongful death of unborn child, if you can prove person injured viable fetus and prove damages
Wrongful Life- Recover?
Most cts don't recognize a cause of action; however, parents may recover for their medical expenses