Torts – Durham – Fall 2010
Negligence and the RP————————————————————————————-
1. Prima Facie Neg Case
(a) Duty – toward the foreseeable victim’s of his negligent actions
i. Negligence liability is imposed where the defendant engages in unreasonable risk creation, situations where the defendant creates risks that a reasonable person would not
ii. People usually have a duty toward the foreseeable victims of their negligent actions.
iii. Palsgraff: was there a duty from D to this particular P????
iv. A duty to control the actions of another??
(b) [Standard of Care] – what is the nature of the duty? RP under the circumstances
(c) Breach – the obligation was not done, failure to live up to duty
i. D doesn’t have to make the best choice, or even the most customary choice, so long as he made a reasonable choice.
ii. Warning – might show an awareness of the danger
(d) Cause in Fact
i. Not cause in fact – Even had the D done made the reasonable choice, the harm might have resulted anyway.
ii. Cause in fact: only if the injury would not
them
(e) Proximate Cause
i. foreseeable – the very type of harm that made the action unreasonable
(f) Injury
(g) [Defenses]
i. Must do causation for con/com negligence
2. Adams v. Bullock: [Judge Hand held that the accident was so freak that “no prophecy” of danger alerted D that special precautions. Must ask, “What would a reasonable Trolly Co do in this situation]
(a) Reasonable to think “this could happen to someone, somewhere” – if not, no Duty!
(b) The reasonable person standard of care – how ought people act – the ideal person
3. Carroll Towing v. US: [Judge Hand provided a formula for assigning a duty.]
(a) A function of 3 variables
i. L: Injury caused by D’s actions
ii. P: Likelihood of the injury arising – foreseeability
iii. B: Burdens (costs) of taking precaution to prevent injury – or the cost to society
iv. PL = the economic benefit to be anticipated from incurring B
(b) If B
