Review of Reasonable Care
Negligence as a Cause of Action
Plaintiff must prove four elements:
- ??????????
- ??????????
- ??????????
- ??????????
Negligence as a Cause of Action
Plaintiff must prove four elements:
- Duty
- Breach
- Causation
- Harm
Prima facie case of negligence
On its face, plaintiff has met the burden of proving duty, breach, causation, and harm.
Doesn’t mean plaintiff wins! Just means that a jury could find for the plaintiff.
Negligence as a Concept
Relates to the elements of duty and breach
The “fault” principle
Defined as a failure to exercise “reasonable care”
Ways to determine reasonable care under the circumstances include:
- ?????????? - ?????????? - ?????????? - ?????????? - ??????????
Special Considerations - ??????????
Ways to determine reasonable care under the circumstances include:
- Foreseeability - The Reasonable Person - Custom - Statute - Cost-Benefit Analysis (Hand Formula: B < P*L)
Special Considerations - Judge and jury relationship
Foreseeability
Foreseeability is a flexible concept.
Define any event in general enough terms and it is foreseeable.
Define any event in narrow enough terms and it is unforeseeable.
Reasonable Person Standard
An objective standard designed to clarify what reasonable care requires.
Exceptions to objective standard: - Physical disability - Children - Expertise
Not exceptions to objective standard - Mental disability - Children engaged in adult activity - Old age & infirmity
How to use customs and statutes
Sword for proving negligence Prove two things:
- Custom or statute = reasonable care - Defendant failed to comply with custom or statute -————————————————— Shield for disproving negligence Prove two things:
- Custom or statute = reasonable care - Defendant complied with custom or statute
Negligence per se
- Actor violates a statute that is designed to protect against this type of accident and harm
AND
- the accident victim is within the class of persons the statute is designed to protect.
Economic theory of negligence
Hand Formula
B = Burden of precautionary measures P = Probability of loss/harm L = Magnitude of loss/harm
IF B < PL AND defendant did not take on B THEN defendant was negligent
IF B > PL AND defendant did not take on B THEN defendant was NOT negligent
BPL Example
Railroad company with a 50% chance of causing $200k in damage to a farm beside the railroad tracks. Solar panels are available as a possible precaution. Would reduce 100% of the harm to the plaintiff at cost of $200k to railroad company. Railroad company takes no precautions. Was the railroad company negligent?
B = $200k P = 50% L = $200k
B > P * L $200k > (50% * $200k)
BPL Example
Same facts as before. Railroad company with a 50% chance of causing $200k in damage to a farm beside the railroad tracks. But now spark arresters are also available as a possible precaution. Would reduce likelihood of the harm to plaintiff by 50% at cost of $30k to railroad company. Railroad company takes no precautions. Was the railroad company negligent?
B = $30k P = 25% L = $200k
B < P * L $30k < (25% * $200k)
BPL Example
Possible precautions | Cost for defendant | Expected cost for plaintiff | Total cost to society |
---|---|---|---|
No Precaution | $0 | $100k | $100k |
Solar Panels | $200k | $0 | $200k |
Spark Arresters | $30k | $50k | $80k |
Economic Theory of Negligence
Fault = economic inefficiency
Embodies a trust in private ordering and economic incentives
Driven by a goal of maximizing overall economic welfare
Critiques of Economic Theory
Incommeasurability of harms
Uncertainty of cost calculations
That’s all, folks!
Ways to determine reasonable care under the circumstances include:
- Foreseeability - The Reasonable Person - Custom - Statute - Cost-Benefit Analysis (Hand Formula: B < P*L)
Special Considerations - Judge and jury relationship
Noriega v. Loyola State Fair
Assignment: Deliver a memo detailing potential theories of negligence that could be argued in this case. For each argument, you should include:
what constituted reasonable care under the circumstances, and why, and how the defendant failed to exercise that duty of reasonable care
what the defense’s best counterarguments would be
in your estimation, how strong of a theory of negligence this is