Negligence in Tort Law

<p>You owe a duty of care to those who could reasonably be affected by your actions (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The mischief of a third party can be a proximate cause in negligence claims. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>That multiple potential causes exist, complicating proximate cause (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A plausible explanation for why the incident occurred (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The nature of the accident itself can indicate negligence. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The defendant can show the plaintiff had the opportunity to avoid harm. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The defendant driving the wagon (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Percentage-based liability (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The child was too young to understand the consequences. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The negligence of two or more persons contributes to a third person's damage. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Damages are reduced based on the plaintiff's share of responsibility. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It allows defendants to argue the plaintiff had an opportunity to avoid harm. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Damages differ based on the child's ability to understand. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Allowing plaintiffs to recover damages after taking alternative risks due to a defendant's actions. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The last party that had the opportunity to avert the accident. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>If their response involved taking an alternative risk due to the defendant’s actions. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The Last Clear Chance Doctrine applies to determine liability. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It relieves the plaintiff from proving the defendant's negligence. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A driver brakes suddenly to avoid hitting a swerving motorcycle just before the accident. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It focuses on the relationship between individuals and their impact on others. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The plaintiff may recover damages even after taking a risk to protect themselves. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

A legal principle where a plaintiff can recover damages even if they took a risk to escape a dangerous situation caused by the defendant's negligence. This applies if the plaintiff's actions were reasonable and necessary to avoid the danger.

This doctrine applies when both plaintiff and defendant were negligent, but the defendant had the final opportunity to prevent the accident. Under this doctrine, even a slightly negligent plaintiff might recover damages.

This is the legal obligation to exercise a reasonable standard of care to prevent injury to others. Failure to meet this standard leads to negligence.

Negligence occurs when someone breaches their duty of care, causing harm to another person. This can include driving recklessly, failing to warn of a dangerous situation, or providing inadequate care.

A plaintiff who is found to be even slightly negligent might be completely barred from recovering damages. This is a legal principle that reduces or bars compensation depending on the level of the plaintiff's fault.

A defense used by the defendant to argue that the plaintiff could have prevented the accident, even after the defendant's negligence.

The principle where both plaintiff and defendant share responsibility for the harm caused, and the plaintiff's damages are reduced proportionally to their negligence.

Children may not fully understand or appreciate the risks, making it difficult to establish contributory negligence.

Cases where a child's negligence is considered too low to be attributed to the harm they suffered.

Occurs when the negligence of multiple individuals contributes to the same damage suffered by a third person.

The amount of damages recovered by a plaintiff is reduced based on their contributory negligence, determined by the court as just and equitable.

A legal defense arguing that the defendant's actions were too far removed from the harm caused, breaking the chain of causation.

The most immediate and direct cause of harm, often the most recent event in a chain of events.

An event or action that is considered to be indirect or a less immediate cause of harm.

A legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to prove negligence without directly proving the defendant's actions caused the harm, based on the unusual and highly improbable nature of the event.

A legal doctrine that can be applied when a plaintiff suffers an unusual injury while unconscious during medical treatment. The defendants who controlled the plaintiff or the instruments used during the treatment are responsible for providing an explanation of their conduct.

The unusual injury itself provides evidence of negligence.

The circumstances of the accident provide enough evidence to establish a preliminary case of negligence.

The defendant must provide a reasonable explanation for their actions.