Employer's Liability and Negligence Concepts

Employer liability for an employee's negligence when the task is part of their job, even if the employee acted negligently.

The level of care that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar situation.

Comparing a person's conduct to that of a hypothetical reasonable person in the same situation.

Factors considered in the objective standard of care for determining negligence, such as mental ability, physical disability, old age, and children.

Considering the defendant's specific knowledge, experience, and beliefs when determining if their actions were reasonable.

The highest level of care, taking great care, being very careful, and paying close attention to details.

Ordinary or reasonable care, the amount of care a reasonable person would exercise.

Employer liability when they knowingly hire an employee with a negative past, and that past leads to harm in their work environment.

Indirect evidence that supports a claim by requiring additional logical inferences. It doesn't directly prove a fact, but suggests it.

An established practice or common behavior within a field. It's a guide for determining if someone acted reasonably, but not conclusive evidence.

A situation where a plaintiff's negligence contributes to their own injury. It's a defense used by defendants to diminish their liability.

When a defendant's violation of a statute is treated as negligence by itself.

Evidence that seems enough to support a case initially. It would usually warrant a hearing.

The purpose of a statute must be considered when determining whether a plaintiff's harm was the type the legislature intended to prevent.

Sometimes breaking a statute is justified if it creates a safer condition.

A special case of medical malpractice involving negligence.

A legal doctrine used to determine if an act caused an injury - simply asking if the injury would have occurred 'but for' the act.

A legal doctrine analyzing how directly connected an action is to the injury, considering whether it's a foreseeable consequence.

A type of contributory negligence where the injured party fully understands the risk and still chooses to proceed.

A formal agreement that releases someone from liability for potential harm, often used in activities like rock climbing or ziplining.

A legal principle that prevents someone who voluntarily helps in an emergency from being sued for negligence, unless their actions were reckless or grossly negligent.

Factors used to determine if a waiver of liability is valid in cases where it affects public interest.

A common defense to negligence, where the plaintiff's actions were partly responsible for the injury, reducing the defendant's liability.

The legal duty a therapist owes to prevent a third party from harm, even if the individual is not their patient. This arises when the therapist, due to their expertise, foresees a specific and imminent risk of danger to that person. Note: This duty applies when the individual is specifically named.

A three-part test used to determine if a private citizen can sue based on a statutory violation. The test requires meeting all three conditions: 1) The plaintiff must be part of the group the statute aims to protect. 2) Enforcing the private right of action must align with the law's intentions. 3) Creating this right must not conflict with how the law is structured.

A scenario where a single event causes a massive influx of legal claims, potentially overwhelming the legal system and making it unfair for all parties involved. This can also refer to cases where liability risks are so high that they become unreasonable and unfair.

The legal responsibility of a person who provides alcohol at a social gathering for injuries caused by intoxicated guests. The extent of this responsibility differs by jurisdiction.

The legal duties a landowner owes to different types of individuals entering their property. These duties vary based on the person's status:

1. Invitee: A general legal duty to exercise reasonable care.
2. Licensee: Duty to warn of known dangers.
3. Trespasser: No general duty, but a duty to avoid willful or wanton negligence (intentional harm).

A legal principle that holds someone responsible for the harm caused by someone they gave a dangerous object to. This applies when they should have known the person was unfit to handle the object due to their knowledge, experience, or behavior.

A situation where a person has a legal obligation to help someone based on their actions, even if they were not initially responsible for the situation. This generally arises when someone begins assisting a person in need. This obligation usually only requires them to avoid making the situation worse, rather than taking full responsibility.

A legal doctrine that determines whether a person or entity has a legal duty to act in a situation where someone is injured or harmed. This concept can be applied to a wide range of situations, such as car accidents, slip-and-falls, and negligence.

An activity is considered abnormally dangerous when it involves a high degree of risk that cannot be eliminated by exercising reasonable care, and its societal value is outweighed by its inherent risks.

A common carrier cannot refuse to transport lawful goods, even if they are hazardous, because the carrier is obligated to serve the public.

An enterprise that benefits from engaging in a risky activity has a greater responsibility to bear the costs associated with potential accidents.

In joint and several liability, each defendant is responsible for the entire amount of damages, even if they only contributed a portion of the negligence. The plaintiff can collect the full amount from any of the defendants.

A private nuisance occurs when someone intentionally and unreasonably interferes with another person's enjoyment of their property. This may include noise, pollution, or other disturbances.

A court will determine if an activity is unreasonable by considering the gravity of harm and the utility of the conduct. For example, if the harm outweighs the benefits, the activity might be considered unreasonable.

A legal test used to identify whether intangible property, like a patent or copyright, can be considered 'property' for the purpose of a conversion claim.

An act of intentional interference with a person's liberty of movement, through physical or psychological coercion. It includes restricting someone from moving from where they are, even if there's no physical restraint.

Intentional and unlawful touching of another person's body without their consent, even if there's no physical injury. It can be contact that is harmful or offensive.

A tort that involves the intentional exercise of unlawful control over property belonging to someone else, leading to a substantial or permanent impairment of the owner's right to use and enjoy their chattel. It involves deprivation of the owner's interest in their property.

Intentional tort involving an unlawful act that interferes with the owner's possession or use of personal property. This can involve deprivation of an owner's interest in their property, but it's less severe than conversion, and doesn't require complete loss of use.

A tort involving intentional and harmful or offensive contact with another person, causing reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm.

A legal doctrine where the plaintiff's negligence is a complete bar to recovery. Under this approach, if the plaintiff shares any fault for the injury, they cannot recover any damages.