1. Negligence

2. Homework 20.1 and 20.2 – read Chapter 20 20.1 and 20.2 – read Chapter 20

3. Negligence: a tort, is a civil wrong consisting of five criteria: Negligence: a tort, is a civil wrong consisting of five criteria: Duty or reasonable standard of care (as decided by judge as a matter of law), Duty or reasonable standard of care (as decided by judge as a matter of law), Breach (or "negligence" in laymen's terms, decided as a matter of fact), Breach (or "negligence" in laymen's terms, decided as a matter of fact), Injury (the fact that the plaintiff suffered an injury, and is determined at a matter of fact), Injury (the fact that the plaintiff suffered an injury, and is determined at a matter of fact), Cause in Fact or conduct of defendant that causes plaintiff's injury(s)(decided as a matter of fact), Cause in Fact or conduct of defendant that causes plaintiff's injury(s)(decided as a matter of fact), Legal Cause (now perceived as the foreseeability of the type of injury caused but not the specific injury or extent of injury, determined as a matter of fact). Legal Cause (now perceived as the foreseeability of the type of injury caused but not the specific injury or extent of injury, determined as a matter of fact). Matters of law are decided by a judge, matters of fact are decided by a jury. Matters of law are decided by a judge, matters of fact are decided by a jury.

4. In order to prove negligence, it is not necessary to prove harm, but in order for a cause of action to rest in tort, harm must be proven In order to prove negligence, it is not necessary to prove harm, but in order for a cause of action to rest in tort, harm must be proven In order for the harm to be compensable in a negligence lawsuit, the defendant must be shown to have been negligent, and it must be demonstrated that his negligence was the proximate cause of the harm sustained by the plaintiff. In order for the harm to be compensable in a negligence lawsuit, the defendant must be shown to have been negligent, and it must be demonstrated that his negligence was the proximate cause of the harm sustained by the plaintiff. Damages are awarded in proportion to the scope of the harm done Damages are awarded in proportion to the scope of the harm done The courts also consider the idea if a “reasonable person” would commit or dismiss the act The courts also consider the idea if a “reasonable person” would commit or dismiss the act

5. When considering a negligence cause of action there are six primary elements which need to be viewed and covered thoroughly: When considering a negligence cause of action there are six primary elements which need to be viewed and covered thoroughly: (1) duty, (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (2) breach of duty, (3) causation, (3) causation, 4) damage, 4) damage, (5) remoteness and (5) remoteness and (6) defences. (6) defences. Once this has been done an appropriate award of damages may be considered Once this has been done an appropriate award of damages may be considered

6. Coase theorem the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, relates to the economic efficiency of a government's allocation of property rights the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, relates to the economic efficiency of a government's allocation of property rights B < PL B < PL where B is the cost (burden) of taking precautions, and P is the probability of loss (L). where B is the cost (burden) of taking precautions, and P is the probability of loss (L). rather than spending money on safety, the individual will simply allow harm to occur and pay for the costs of that harm, because that will be more cost-efficient than taking precautions rather than spending money on safety, the individual will simply allow harm to occur and pay for the costs of that harm, because that will be more cost-efficient than taking precautions leads to an optimal allocation of resources; where harm can be cheaply avoided, the legal system requires precautions. Where precautions are prohibitively expensive, it does not leads to an optimal allocation of resources; where harm can be cheaply avoided, the legal system requires precautions. Where precautions are prohibitively expensive, it does not

7. In many states, damages in negligence lawsuits can include (but are not limited to) compensation for: In many states, damages in negligence lawsuits can include (but are not limited to) compensation for: the injury suffered the injury suffered damaged or destroyed personal property damaged or destroyed personal property medical and hospital bills medical and hospital bills harm to marital relations (called "loss of consortium") harm to marital relations (called "loss of consortium") lost past and future earnings lost past and future earnings and physical and emotional "pain and suffering" and physical and emotional "pain and suffering"

8. Defenses to suits Contributory negligence: cannot recover remedies for your own negligence Contributory negligence: cannot recover remedies for your own negligence Comparative negligence: dividing the damages in accordance to the degree in which each was at fault Comparative negligence: dividing the damages in accordance to the degree in which each was at fault Scenario: Business Law question Scenario: Business Law question P sues D in negligence. At trial, it is determined that P's negligence was 40% responsible for P's injury, and D's negligence was 60% responsible. P's losses total $10,000. Under a pure comparative negligence system, P will recover: a) Nothing. b) $4000. c) $6000. d) $10,00 0. P sues D in negligence. At trial, it is determined that P's negligence was 40% responsible for P's injury, and D's negligence was 60% responsible. P's losses total $10,000. Under a pure comparative negligence system, P will recover: a) Nothing. b) $4000. c) $6000. d) $10,00 0. Assumption of Risk: voluntary encountering a known danger Assumption of Risk: voluntary encountering a known danger