Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
:star: CHAPTER 2: NEGLIGENCE: DUTY AND BREACH OF DUTY (:CHECK: DUTY - THE…
:star: CHAPTER 2: NEGLIGENCE: DUTY AND BREACH OF DUTY
:check:NEGLIGENCE
:check: UNAVOIDABLE ACCIDENT
:CHECK: DUTY - THE FIRST ELEMENT
The Palsgraf Case
Duty in Failing to Act
Scope of Duty
Good Samaritan Law
:CHECK: BREACH OF DUTY - THE SECOND ELEMENT
:CHECK: REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD
:check: EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL STANDARD OF DUE CARE/REASONABLE CARE
Common Carriers
Persons with Disabilities
Minors
Persons with Special Knowledge, Education, Training, or Skills
:CHECK: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
:CHECK: GROSS NEGLIGENCE
:check: EVIDENCE OF CUSTOM AND STATUTES IN ESTABLISHING BREACH OF DUTY
:CHECK: THE TRIER OF FACT
:CHECK: JURY INSTRUCTIONS
:CHECK: EMERGENCY RULE
:CHECK: THE LEARNED HAND APPROACH VS "REASONALBE CARE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES"
:CHECK: THREE APPROACHES TO A VIOLATION OF STATUTE
:check: NEGLIGENCE PER SE
:check: RES IPSA LOQUITUR ("THE THING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF")
The Negligence Can Be Attributed to the Defendant Because the Occurrence Is of a Type That the Defendant Had a Duty to Guard Against/Prevent
Neither the Plaintiff nor any Third Person Caused or Contributed to the Plaintiff's Harm or Injury
The occurrence is One that Does Not Normally Occur Without Negligence
Effect of Establishing Res Ipsa Loquitur - Inference vs. Presumption