Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
2. Strict liability is not based upon the negligence or intent of the defendant but
rather upon the nature of the activity.
a. A person is under duty to all others at all times to exercise reasonable care
for the safety of the others’ person and property.
i. Duty of Care
iv. Harm
v. Scope of liability
a. In determining whether a given risk of harm was unreasonable, the law considers:
i. The foreseeable probability that the person’s conduct will result in harm
ii. The foreseeable gravity or severity of any harm that may follow
iii. The burden of taking precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm.
ii. The standard of conduct to which a child must conform to avoid being negligent
is that of a reasonably careful person of the same age, intelligence, and experience
under all the circumstances.
iii. The law applies an invidualized test because children do not possess the
judgment, intelligence, knowledge, and experience of adults.
vi. Superior skill or knowledge- person who are qualified and who practice a
profession or trade required to exercise that care and skill. (Physicians etc)
vii. Emergencies
If the statute is found to be applicable, the majority of the courts hold that
an unexcused violation is negligence per se- violation conclusively constitutes
negligent conduct.
ix. Duty to Act- In special circumstances, a person who has not created risk of
harm to others ordinarily has no duty of care to another.
Special relations between the parties may impose a duty of reasonable care upon
the defendant to aid the scope of the relationship.
6. Factual Cause- Liability for the negligent conduct requires that the conduct in
fact caused harm to the plaintiff.
a. A widely applied test for causation in fact is the but-for test: A person’s conduct
is a cause of an event if the event would not have occurred but for the person’s
negligent conduct.
b. The but-for test is not satisfied when there are 2 or more causes, each of which is
sufficient to bring about the harm in question and each of which is active at the time the
harm occurs.
7. Scope of Liability
a. Superseding cause
8. The court determines the extent of protection for a particular interest as a matter
of law on the basis of social policy and expediency.
9. Defenses to Negligence
a. Contributory Negligence- Conduct on the part of the plaintiff falls below the
standard to which he should conform for his own protection, and which he is legally
contributing cause co-operating with the negligence of the defendant in bringing about
the plaintiff’s harm
i. A few states have not adopted (Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and
D.C)
a. The doctrine of strict liability is predicated upon the nature of the activity
in which defendant is engaging.
i. The activity creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm
even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors.
b. Keeping of Animals
i. Trespassing animals
Keepers of animals are not strictly liable if those animals incidentally stray upon
land immediately adjacent to a highway on which they are being lawfully driven.
Keepers of farm animals are not strictly liable for harm caused by their
trespassing animals that are allowed to graze freely.
a. Contributory negligence
b. Comparative Negligence
c. Assumption of Risk
i. Must be voluntarily.