Introduction to Negligence and Liability

A legal standard that judges a person's conduct against the hypothetical actions of a reasonable person in similar circumstances.

A legal standard that judges a person's conduct based on their own individual mental capabilities.

The ease with which a legal standard can be applied and understood. It's important for predictable outcomes and efficiency in the legal system.

The concept that certain losses are considered acceptable, even if they could have been prevented.

The idea that legal standards should create incentives to prevent harm. For example, holding people accountable for negligence encourages them to act responsibly.

A method of analyzing negligence by comparing the cost of preventing harm with the potential severity of the harm.

A legal standard that considers the practices common in a particular industry or profession. "Custom" can help determine what is considered reasonable conduct.

A clear, specific rule in the law that leaves little room for interpretation. It aims to create consistency and predictability.

A legal principle where a minor is held to the same standard of care as an adult when engaging in an activity typically performed by adults.

A court case that established the Adult Activity Exception, focusing on the specific example of a minor operating a powerboat and causing injury.

When determining liability for a minor's actions, the court considers if the activity was dangerous to others and typically performed by adults.

This legal principle differentiates between minors engaged in activities like hunting (where age requirements make it likely an adult is involved) and driving (where anyone could be behind the wheel).

In the Dellwo case, the court emphasized that it's difficult to know if someone operating a vehicle is an adult or a minor.

The Purtle case highlights that in activities with age restrictions, like hunting, it's more likely that the participant is an adult.

A minor who causes harm while engaging in an activity typically done by adults will be held to the same standard of care as an adult.

The Adult Activity Exception ensures that minors who engage in activities typically performed by adults are held accountable for their actions in the same way adults are held accountable.

Legal doctrines that address harm after it happens. For example, a court determining if a company was negligent by failing to install safety rails after someone was injured.

Legal doctrines that aim to prevent harm before it happens. For example, laws requiring companies to install safety rails to prevent accidents.

The legal standard used to determine if someone acted negligently. It asks: What would a reasonable person have done in the same situation?

The legal principle that a person is liable for harm caused by their actions, even if they didn't intend to cause harm. For example, a company may be held liable for a faulty product even if they did not know it was faulty.

A legal doctrine that holds a defendant liable for negligence if they violated a safety standard, even if their actions were not unreasonable.

A legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to prove negligence without direct evidence of the defendant's actions. It applies when the harm is something that would not ordinarily occur without negligence.

The analysis courts use to determine if a defendant's actions were negligent. It involves balancing the probability of harm, gravity of the harm, and the cost of preventing the harm.

A landmark case that illustrates the tension between ex ante and ex post analysis. It involved a woman injured by a falling scale at a train station, raising questions about foreseeability of harm versus actual harm.

The court tries to provide a legal standard that encourages everyone to take reasonable precautions, aiming to reduce overall societal costs. This promotes safety by minimizing accidents and their consequences.

The court considers a person's physical disabilities when determining if they acted reasonably. For example, a blind person might take more time navigating, and a reasonable person would understand this.

In the case of Davis v. Feinstein, the plaintiff (P) fell through an open cellar door in front of the defendant's (D) door. The court concluded that the defendant should have taken precautions to prevent such accidents, realizing that a blind person cannot be expected to avoid falling into a cellar door without barriers or other safeguards.

Children are held to a lower standard of care than adults, taking into account their maturity and lack of experience. This means their actions are judged differently when considering negligence.

A legal principle that states children under the age of seven are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence. This means they cannot be found legally responsible for their actions.

The Rule of Sevens is a legal concept that distinguishes the level of care expected from children. The rule states that children under 7 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence, while children between 7 and 14 are presumed to be capable of negligence, but this presumption can be rebutted.

The Rule of Sevens is a legal principle that sets a legal standard for judging children's actions. Children under 7 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence, while children between 7 and 14 generally capable, and children over 14 are presumed capable, but this presumption can be rebutted.

Physical limitations, like blindness or a missing limb, are generally easier to account for in legal judgments than mental capabilities, which can be more subjective and nuanced. Courts may be more adaptable to adjust legal standards for individuals based on observable, physical differences.

Economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits of a rescue. Expected benefits of the rescue should outweigh the expected costs.

A legal standard that requires weighing both human suffering and economic loss in a negligence analysis, rather than focusing solely on one.

The situation where the potential value of rescuing someone outweighs the expected cost of doing so.

In cases of negligence, the court has primarily considered the probability of one type of loss. BPL expands this to include the probability of different types of loss.

The practice of compensating someone for a loss that occurred in the past.

The principle of fairness in determining whether a person should be held liable for negligence. Individuals who act in a way that benefits society, even if their actions are potentially risky, should not be penalized.

The situation where a company or individual is legally responsible for damages caused by their negligence or actions.

A standard of care that considers the actions of a reasonable professional operating in a similar geographic area or specialty.

The locality rule seeks to balance the need for consistent care with the unique circumstances of different geographic locations. While holding professionals accountable, it also recognizes that resource availability and community needs can vary.

The locality rule can be difficult to apply because it's not always clear what constitutes a 'similar locality.' For example, are two towns with similar populations and medical facilities considered similar enough?

While the locality rule aims to manage diverse standards, it might still overlook the unique challenges faced by professionals in highly isolated areas, where resources and expertise may be limited.

The locality rule can help to ensure that professionals are held to reasonable standards, even in areas where there are limited resources or unique challenges. It aims to promote fairness and quality of care across different regions.

A legal standard where a person's conduct is judged against the hypothetical actions of an average professional in the same specialty, regardless of local standards.

This standard is more common than the Locality Rule, as it focuses on a consistent, high level of care regardless of location. This helps ensure quality and consistency regardless of where you are.