negligence chapter 8. copyright © 2007 thomson delmar learning objectives define and identify...

Negligence

Chapter 8

Copyright © 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning

Objectives

• Define and identify elements of negligence.

• Explain concepts: – Duty– Standard of care– Breach– Damages and proximate cause


• Explain what the standard of care is for professionals and those with specialized training.

• Identify types of evidence that can be used to establish the standard of care for a professional.

Objectives


• Explain defenses to negligence:– Assumption of risk– Contributory negligence– Comparative negligence– Last clear chance doctrine– Rescue doctrine

Objectives


• Explain Fireman’s Rule.

• Define gross negligence and recklessness.

• Explain joint and several liability.

• Identify common types of activities for which strict liability is imposed.

Objectives


Negligence

• Many definitions exist

• Our definition – Failure to exercise the care that the reasonably

prudent person would have exercised under the circumstances, which causes damages to another


Elements of Negligence

• Three elements

1. Act/omission

2. Causing damages to another

3. Breach of the standard of care


Act

• Act – Doing an affirmative act

• Driving a car• Performing CPR• Extinguishing a fire


Omission

• Omission– Failure to do something you are legally required

to do– Concept of legal duty

• At common law– No duty to act even if someone is in trouble


Damages

• Damages– Personal injury, property damage, or money lost

• Damages do not include: – Hurt feelings or being wronged in principle


Causation

• Damages must be caused by defendant’s negligence– Proximate cause = legal cause– Requires more than “but for” cause


Breach of the Standard of Care

• Act or omission must have failed to live up to the reasonably prudent person standard

• Standard of care

• Who or what is the reasonably prudent person?


Reasonably Prudent Person

• An imaginary common person who is very careful– "When a person, acting in a given set of

circumstances, fails to exercise that degree of care for the safety of another which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in the same or similar circumstances, said person is said to be negligent.“ Rhode Island Supreme Court


• Standard works for normal daily activities that all people are familiar with– Driving a car– Cooking a meal

Reasonably Prudent Person


Reasonably Prudent Professional

• Reasonably prudent professional standard– To evaluate those with special knowledge or

expertise– Standard of care expected of someone with

professional qualifications


• Standard of care is a question of fact for the jury

• Evidence of standard of care comes from– Expert witnesses– Laws and regulations– Industrywide standards

Reasonably Prudent Professional


Fire Service Negligence Cases

• Kenavan v. New York

• McGuckin v. Chicago

• Harry Stroller v. City of Lowell


Emergency Medical Care and Negligence

• Consent to treat, battery, and negligence

• Patient abandonment


Defenses to Negligence

• Contributory negligence

• Assumption of the risk

• Comparative negligence

• Last clear chance

• Rescue doctrine


Fireman’s Rule

• An exception to the rescue doctrine

• Bars suits by firefighters and police officers for injuries sustained at emergencies– States have differing applications


Fireman’s Rule Modern Limitations

• Injured firefighters may sue if:– Defendant intentionally set fire– Owner or tenant was reckless or grossly negligent

in starting fire – Occupant failed to warn FFs of a dangerous

condition


Strict Liability

• Liability without regard to fault

• Unreasonably dangerous activities

• Most common– Explosives– Wild and dangerous animals– Nuclear reactors


• Even intentional conduct of others will not stop liability

• Economics– Damages or risk of harm must be incorporated into

the price as a cost of doing business

Strict Liability


• Cost can be spread among users, as opposed to being borne solely by victims

• Further incentive for involved parties to exercise utmost care

Strict Liability


Respondeat Superior

• Employer is liable for acts of employee committed within scope of employment

• Respondeat superior does not require negligence by employer

• Employee wrongdoing must be within scope of employment


Joint Liability

• If the negligence of two or more parties causes damages to a plaintiff

• Each is liable to plaintiff for 100 percent of damages– Defendants can later recover from each other a

pro-rata share based upon fault


Summary

• Definition of negligence

• Defenses to negligence

• Fireman’s Rule

• Gross negligence and recklessness


• Strict liability

• Respondeat superior

• Joint and several liability

Summary

negligence chapter 8. copyright © 2007 thomson delmar learning objectives define and identify...

Documents

standard of care slide

thomson delmar learning

thomson delmar learning

prudent person slide

standard of care act

principle slide

expertise standard of

prudent professional