Structuring Arguments

Syllogism for proving duty and breach

D was legally obligated to do X.

D failed to do X.

Therefore, D breached their legal duty.

Detailed version

D had a duty (to the plaintiff) to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.

Reasonable care under the circumstances was X, because of

- foreseeability,

- reasonable person standard,

- custom,

- statute,

- or hand formula.

D failed to do X, therefore D acted negligently / breached their legal duty to plaintiff.

Byrne v. Boadle

Larson v. St. Francis

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Two requirements:

1. Harm results from the kind of situation in which negligence can be inferred
2. Defendant was responsible for the instrument of harm

Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel

Why Allow Res Ipsa Loquitur?

1. Probabilistic rationale
2. Asymmetry and fairness justification