LAW 122 Chapter Notes - Chapter 6: Product Liability, Contributory Negligence
LAW – Chapter 6 – Negligence
The tort of negligence – determines whether the defendant can be held liable for carelessly
causing injury to the plaintiff
Defendant owed a duty of care (required to act carefully to plaintiff)
Defendant breached the standard of care by acting carelessly
Defendant caused harm to the plaintiff: causation
Defendant can show that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, voluntarily assumed
the risk, and was injured while engaged in illegal behaviour
Duty of care – exists if the defendant is required to use reasonable care to avoid injuring the
plaintiff
Three questions to determine if duty of care should exist:
Was it reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff could be injured by the defendant’s
carelessness?
Did the parties share a relationship of sufficient proximity?
If an injury was reasonable foreseeable, and if the parties shared a relationship of
sufficient proximity, then a duty of care presumably will exist
But even if there is a duty of care, a court might not enforce it due to public policy
The concept of proximity is that there must somehow be a close and direct connection between
the parties
Social or commercial relationship, direct casual connection, or the plaintiff relied on the
fact the the defendant represented that they would act in a certain way
A policy is concerned with the effect that a duty of care would have on the legal system and on
society generally
Special case: duty of care for statements
Reasonable foreseeability: Communicated on a serious occasion, made in response to
an inquiry, defendant paid for statement, statement of fact vs. opinion, disclaimer
present or not
Proximity: defendant knew that the plaintiff might rely on statement and plaintiff relied
on statement for its intended purpose
The standard of care – tells the defendant how they should act
The standard of care is breached when the defendant acts less carefully
The reasonable person test – requires the defendant to act in the same way that a reasonable
person would act in similar circumstances
Its objective
The reasonable person takes precautions against reasonably foreseeable risks
The reasonable person is influenced by both the likelihood of harm and the potential
severity of harm
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
The tort of negligence determines whether the defendant can be held liable for carelessly causing injury to the plaintiff. Defendant owed a duty of care (required to act carefully to plaintiff) Defendant breached the standard of care by acting carelessly. Defendant caused harm to the plaintiff: causation. Defendant can show that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, voluntarily assumed the risk, and was injured while engaged in illegal behaviour. Duty of care exists if the defendant is required to use reasonable care to avoid injuring the plaintiff. Three questions to determine if duty of care should exist: If an injury was reasonable foreseeable, and if the parties shared a relationship of sufficient proximity, then a duty of care presumably will exist. But even if there is a duty of care, a court might not enforce it due to public policy. The concept of proximity is that there must somehow be a close and direct connection between the parties.
