CHAPTER IV. NEGLIGENCE
1) History
a. Emerged around 1825 out of action on the case.
2) Elements of Cause of Action
a. Duty to conform to a standard of conduct to protect others from certain risks
b. Breach of that duty
c. Causal connection between action and resulting injury
d. Actual loss or damage resulting to the interests of another (unlike other torts)
3) In detail:
a. Duty: The defendant has a legal obligation to follow a standard of conduct to protect others from unreasonable risks.
b. Breach of Duty: The defendant fails to conform to that standard.
c. Proximate Cause: The defendant’s breach of duty has a causal link with the harm suffered by the plaintiff.
d. Actual Damage: The plaintiff suffers actual damage; nominal damages do not create a cause of action for negligence.
4) A Negligence Formula
a. Inherently dangerous objects: An examination of the inherent danger present (or lacking) in the object can show evidence risk.
i. Lubitz v. Wells (golf club in backyard, which kid later uses to swing a stone at P)
1. No negligence, because there is nothing intrinsically dangerous about a golf club.
2. The plaintiff must establish breach of duty by showing that the defendant’s conduct created an unreasonable risk of harm.
ii. Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co(fire hydrant explodes 25 years after installation due to a unexpectedly severe winter, damaging P’s home)
1. D is not negligent because its use of care was based on expected wea
uses the drum to explode, severely burning P)
1. D is negligent because a reasonable person would have foreseen the real threat of serious injury resulting from an explosion
2. Likelihood of damage/foreseeability: To be liable, the likelihood/foreseeability of damage must be such that a reasonable person would take precautions to avoid it. However, if the defendant was aware of a real likelihood of damage, he is obligated to take precautions no matter now unlikely the occurrence is.
iv. Restatement on Magnitude: The following factors determine the magnitude of risk in conduct:
a. The social value which the law attaches to the interests which are imperiled
b. The extent or chance that the actor’s conduct will cause an invasion of any interest of the other or of one of a class of which the other is a member.
c. The extent of the harm likely to be caused to the interests imperiled.
d. The number of persons whose interests are likely to be invaded if the risk takes effect in harm.
v. United States v. Carroll Towing Co. (barge broke away from a pier when D’s employees shifted the lines that moored it. D argues that P was also negligent in not keeping an employee on the barge)
1. Π negligent, because Π had a low burden in keeping a man aboard compared with the real risk that lines would come undone
2. B
