IV. NEGLIGENCE Standard of Fault in Negligence Cases is Much Broader than in Intentional Torts - Question of imposition of risk on others that results in injury - The kind of risk must be an risk unreasonable A. Prima Facie Case for Negligence 1. Duty 2. Breach of Duty 3. Actual Cause 4. Proximate Cause 5. Damage B. Duty - Standard of care is a reasonable standard of care under the circumstances - i.e. the amount of care a reasonable person exercise under the circumstances - D is held to the standard of care that would be exercised by a “The reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances as the D was in at the time of the alleged negligence.” - A degree” of care is not warranted “extraordinary - Motts v. Stwart (pouring gasoline) The amount of care may increase under the circumstances (Danger/Risk: probability of harm), but the standard of reasonable care does not change. - the amount of care varies with the risk/danger The jury determines the amount of care that would have been care” “reasonable under the circumstances. - Hypo: you’d use a higher amount of care trying to catch a baby than a book; the amount that is reasonable changes, not the standard of reasonableness. - Emergencies do not change the standard of care - they may change what is reasonable under emergency circumstances - a reasonable person will have more leeway to act in an emergency 1. RPP - The RPP test is an objective test - if is no risk, there is no action required (negligence is based on risk) - Jury determines whether the actions of the defendant were reasonable by comparing those actions to the RPP - If the defendant fails the RPP test, they are likely to be found negligent if they meet the additional elements of the tort of negligence.
IV. NEGLIGENCE Standard of Fault in Negligence Cases is Much Broader than in Intentional Torts - Question of imposition of risk on others that results in injury - The kind of risk must be an unreasonable risk A. Prima Facie Case for Negligence 1. Duty 2. Breach of Duty 3. Actual Cause 4. Proximate Cause 5. Damage B. Duty - Standard of care is a reasonable standard of care under the circumstances - i.e. the amount of care a reasonable person exercise under the circumstances - “The D is held to the standard of care that would be exercised by a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances as the D was in at the time of the alleged negligence.” - A “extraordinary degree” of care is not warranted - Motts v. Stwart (pouring gasoline) The amount of care may increase under the circumstances (Danger/Risk: probability of harm), but the standard of reasonable care does not change. - the amount of care varies with the risk/danger The jury determines the amount of care that would have been “reasonable care” under the circumstances. - Hypo: you’d use a higher amount of care trying to catch a baby than a book; the amount that is reasonable changes, not the standard of reasonableness. - Emergencies do not change the standard of care - they may change what is reasonable under emergency circumstances - a reasonable person will have more leeway to act in an emergency 1. RPP - The RPP test is an objective test - if is no risk, there is no action required (negligence is based on risk) - Jury determines whether the actions of the defendant were reasonable by comparing those actions to the RPP - If the defendant fails the RPP test, they are likely to be found negligent if they meet the additional elements of the tort of negligence.