> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://lawmaxxing.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Quick Review > Session 15 # Negligence: Prima Facie Case ### 1. Black Letter Law / Rule To establish a prima facie case for negligence, the Plaintiff must prove four elements in chronological order: 1. **Duty:** The Defendant owed a legal duty of care to the Plaintiff . 2. **Breach:** The Defendant’s conduct fell below the applicable standard of care . 3. **Causation:** The Defendant’s breach was the **Actual Cause** (Cause-in-Fact) and **Proximate Cause** of the harm . 4. **Damages:** The Plaintiff suffered actual damages (Note: For Torts I, simply state "facts indicate plaintiff suffered damages" as specific damage calculations are Torts II material) . *** # Duty of Care ### 1. Black Letter Law / Rule **General Duty Rule:** By virtue of engaging in an activity, one is under a legal duty to act as an ordinary, prudent, and reasonable person to protect all **foreseeable plaintiffs** from an unreasonable risk of **physical injury** . **Establishing Duty:** There are three primary tools to prove a duty exists: 1. **Engagement in Activity:** Engaging in conduct that increases the risk of physical harm toward foreseeable plaintiffs . 2. **Negligence Per Se:** (Discussed below). 3. **Privity of Contract:** A contractual relationship creating a duty . ### 2. Key Cases * **Palsgraf:** (Referenced regarding the "Zone of Danger"). * **Holding:** If a plaintiff is outside the "zone of danger" (e.g., 60 feet away), the defendant’s conduct does not increase the risk of physical harm to them, and no duty is owed . *** # Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) ### 1. Black Letter Law / Rule **Direct Victim (Pure Emotional Distress):** When a plaintiff suffers "pure" emotional distress (unaccompanied by physical injury), they cannot use the standard duty analysis involving risk of *physical* harm. Instead, to prove duty, the plaintiff must show a **definite and objective physical manifestation** of severe emotional distress . **Bystander Recovery:** A bystander who witnesses injury to a third party may recover for emotional distress if they satisfy three requirements: 1. **Close familial relationship** with the victim. 2. **Present at the scene** and aware of the injury-causing event. 3. **Severe emotional distress** beyond that of a disinterested witness (and not abnormal) . ### 3. Hypotheticals & Examples * **The Baseball Bat Attack:** A husband is hit with a baseball bat; the wife witnesses it. * *Analysis:* The husband suffered battery/physical injury. The wife suffered pure emotional distress. She must use the Bystander Recovery rules to establish duty because she was not physically touched . *** # Breach of Duty ### 1. Black Letter Law / Rule Breach is established by showing the defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care. There are three primary pathways to prove breach : 1. **Reasonable Person Standard:** Conduct fell below the standard of care of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances . * *Note on Minors:* A minor's conduct is compared to a reasonable prudent minor of like age/experience, *unless* engaged in an adult activity (e.g., driving), in which case they are held to the adult standard . * *Note on Professionals:* A professional (e.g., new attorney/pilot) is held to the standard of a reasonably prudent professional in that field. Subjective inexperience is not a defense . 2. **Negligence Per Se:** Violation of a statute (see below). 3. **Res Ipsa Loquitur:** The accident is of a type that normally does not occur in the absence of negligence . ### 4. Nuance & Policy * **Probative Value of Non-Statutes:** A posted sign (e.g., "Don't walk here") is *not* a statute, so it cannot establish Negligence Per Se. However, it is **probative**—it has a tendency in reason to prove what reasonable conduct under the circumstances would be . *** # Negligence Per Se ### 1. Black Letter Law / Rule **Definition:** Violation of an applicable statute (criminal/regulatory) establishes a **presumption of the existence of a duty and breach thereof** . **Requirements:** 1. **Criminal/Regulatory Statute:** The statute must provide for a criminal penalty (e.g., Vehicle Code, Penal Code) . 2. **Class of Person:** Plaintiff is within the class of people the statute was designed to protect. 3. **Class of Harm:** The harm suffered is the type the statute was designed to prevent. ### 3. Hypotheticals & Examples * **Speeding:** Driving 30mph over the limit violates the Vehicle Code (a criminal statute punishable by fine). This constitutes Negligence Per Se . * **Exam Tip:** Do not discuss Negligence Per Se if there is no statute in the fact pattern (e.g., dropping a beer bottle next to a pool with no statute cited). It is a "non-issue" . *** # Causation **Note:** "Causation" implies two distinct elements: **Causation in Fact** and **Proximate Cause**. Both must be proven . ## A. Causation in Fact (Actual Cause) ### 1. Black Letter Law / Rule **The "But-For" Test:** "But for the defendant's negligent conduct, the plaintiff would not have been injured." If true, the defendant is the Cause-in-Fact . **Multiple Defendants / Complex Causation:** * **Concurrent Causes:** Two negligent acts combine to cause the injury, but *neither alone* would have been sufficient. * *Test:* The **"But-For"** test works for both defendants (e.g., Buggy with no lights + Car on wrong side of road. But for *each* factor, the accident wouldn't have happened) . * **Joint Causes:** Two negligent acts combine, and *either alone* would have been sufficient to cause the injury (e.g., two merging fires). * *Test:* The "But-For" test fails. Use the **Substantial Factor Test** . * **Alternative Liability:** Two defendants act negligently (e.g., shoot guns), but only one caused the harm, and it is unknown which one. (Burden shifts to defendants) . ## B. Proximate Cause ### 1. Black Letter Law / Rule **Definition:** A legal doctrine that cuts off liability for harm, even if the defendant was the Cause-in-Fact, because it would be unfair or unjust to hold the defendant liable . **Analysis Framework:** 1. **Direct Cause:** No intervening forces between D's act and P's injury. D is liable for all foreseeable results. 2. **Indirect Cause (Intervening Acts):** An outside force comes into play after D's act. * **Intervening Act:** Any subsequent negligent act. Does not automatically cut off liability . * **Superseding Act:** An intervening act that *does* cut off liability. To be superseding, the act must be **extraordinary, unforeseeable, and independent** . ### 2. Key Concepts * **Rescue Doctrine:** "Danger (or Peril) invites rescue." * *Rule:* If Defendant proximately causes danger, and a rescuer is injured during the rescue, the Defendant is liable to the rescuer. Rescuers are foreseeable plaintiffs whenever there is danger . ### 3. Hypotheticals & Examples * **The Ambulance Crash:** D negligently breaks P's toes. While P is in an ambulance, a third party T-bones the ambulance, breaking P's hand. * *Analysis:* The T-bone is an **Intervening Act**. If it is a normal traffic accident, it is foreseeable and flows from the situation created by D. D is liable for the toes *and* the hand. If the T-bone was **Superseding** (extraordinary/independent), D is only liable for the toes . * **The Buggy and Tractor:** Tractor parks illegally (intervening). Buggy hits it. Tractor parking is intervening, but likely not superseding if foreseeable . *** # Intentional Torts (Specific Intent) ### 1. Black Letter Law / Rule **Intent:** The actor desires to cause the consequences of their act, or knows with **substantial certainty** that the consequences will result . * *Specific Intent:* The goal is to bring about the specific consequences (e.g., harmful contact) . ### 2. Key Cases * **Garratt v. Dailey (The Chair Case):** * *Facts:* A boy pulls a chair away as a woman sits. * *Holding:* Even if he didn't desire to hurt her, he knew with **substantial certainty** that she would hit the ground. This constitutes the requisite intent for battery . *** # Exam Writing Strategy ### 1. The "Issue Outline" Approach Before writing, create an outline: 1. **Identify Parties:** (e.g., Plaintiff v. Defendant). 2. **Identify Cause of Action:** (e.g., Negligence, Battery). 3. **Prima Facie Elements:** List elements (Duty, Breach, Causation, Damages). 4. **Affirmative Defenses:** Only discuss if facts trigger them . ### 2. Formatting the Essay * **Use Headings:** Clearly label "Duty," "Breach," etc. * **IRAC Method:** * **Issue:** State the legal question. * **Rule:** Provide the Black Letter Law (Do not cut-and-paste notes; use memory). * **Analysis:** Apply specific facts to the rule elements. * **Conclusion:** State liability. * **Avoid Non-Issues:** Do not discuss doctrines that are not triggered by the facts (e.g., do not discuss private necessity if there is no emergency; do not discuss contract privity for a car accident) . * **Chronology:** Discuss elements in order. For negligence: Duty -> Breach -> Causation (Actual, then Proximate) -> Damages .