Defenses to Negligence Law

Defenses to Negligence

• Plaintiff's Conduct: A defendant can argue the plaintiff's actions contributed to the harm.

• Contributory Negligence: If the plaintiff's negligence substantially and proximately caused their injuries, it can completely prevent the plaintiff from recovering any damages from the defendant. The burden of proof is on the defendant. This defense is now less common.

  • Exceptions:

    • Intentional, wanton, willful, or reckless conduct by the defendant.
    • A statute abolishing contributory negligence.
    • A statute designed to protect a vulnerable party.

  • Last Clear Chance: A negligent plaintiff can still recover if the defendant had the last opportunity to prevent the harm but failed to do so.

  • Comparative Negligence: The plaintiff's damages are reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to them. This is the more common approach today.

    • Pure Comparative Negligence: Damages are reduced proportionally to the plaintiff's fault regardless of the percentage.
    • Modified Comparative Negligence (Not Greater Than): The plaintiff can recover only if their negligence is less than the defendant's. Some states use this.
    • Modified Comparative Negligence (Not As Great As): The plaintiff can recover only if their negligence is less than the defendant's. Other states use this.
    • Slight-Gross Rule: Recovery is possible only if the plaintiff's negligence was slight compared to the defendant's gross negligence. This is an unusual approach.

• Assumption of Risk: The plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk of harm.

  • Express Assumption of Risk: A contract (agreement) where the plaintiff acknowledges and accepts the risk, although public policy limits such agreements (especially for public safety situations).

    • Exceptions: Uncertain terms, the defendant's act is intentional, reckless, or wanton. Public policy prevents releases regarding actions against public interest.

  • Implied Assumption of Risk: The plaintiff, understanding the risk, intentionally proceeded anyway. The issue here is not carelessness, but a voluntary knowledge and acceptance of the risk.

• Statute of Limitations: A time limit for filing a lawsuit after an incident.

Vicarious Liability

• Respondeat Superior ("Let the superior answer"): An employer can be held liable for the negligence of an employee if the employee was acting within the scope of their employment.

  • Scope of Employment: Employee actions furthering job duties and potentially within the employer's control.
  • Frolic vs. Detour: Distinguishing between minor deviations (detours- employer liable) and significant departures (frolics- employer not liable) from assigned tasks.
    • Employer's intent isn't needed to be liable.
  • Respondeat Superior & Intentional Torts: Can also apply, especially if reasonably connected to employment duties or furthering employer interest. Typically, punitive damages are unlikely unless the employer authorized the intentional tort.

• Independent Contractors: Generally, there isn't vicarious liability for the negligence of independent contractors. Exceptions exist if the duty is "non-delegable"—those in which the task presented grave risks if not performed skillfully (e.g., construction).

• Joint Enterprise: People involved in a shared endeavor can be held liable for each other's negligence if certain conditions are met. These include a shared goal, a community of economic interest, and equal right to direct the enterprise.

  • Family Car Doctrine: The owner of a vehicle may be liable for the negligence of another person using the vehicle with permission. This concept varies by state.

Explore the various defenses to negligence in legal cases. This quiz covers topics such as contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and the concept of last clear chance, highlighting the different ways a defendant can argue against a plaintiff's claim. Test your knowledge on how these defenses affect liability and recovery of damages.