You are on page 1of 1

1. With "intentional torts" the actor intends to cause the act.

2. With negligence, the actor has no intent to cause an act, but through his unreasonable conduct
the act did in fact occur.

B. Elements of Negligence. There are four element to negligence. I will make only general COMMENTS
about each element.

1. The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. This is a duty requiring the defendant to
conduct himself according to certain standards so as to avoid unreasonable risks to others.

2. The defendant breached that duty.

3. The plaintiff suffered injuries.

4. The defendant's breach of duty caused the plaintiff's injury.

a. Causation. Causation has two primary parts.

(1) Causation in Fact. First there must be causation in fact. If an injury would
not have occurred without the defendant's act, then there is causation in
fact.

(A) But For Test. The "but for" test is applied.

(B) Example. Earnest T. dug a hole. Howard stepped in the hole and
broke his leg. But for Earnest T's hole, Howard would not have
broken his leg.

(2) Proximate Cause. If causation in fact is found, then you must find
proximate cause

(A) Proximate cause deals with the extent of defendant's liability.

(B) Major Question. The major question is whether a negligent


defendant's responsibility should extend to consequences that could
in no way have been anticipated.

(I) Foreseeability. Foreseeability is the current test. Under this


test, the duty of care extends to a victim who is located
within a foreseeable zone of danger.

8 Example. Al Bundy negligently runs Marcie off the road. Floyd


sees Marcie and attempts to help her. When Floyd pulls Marcie out
of the car, he severely injuries her back. It is foreseeable that a
third party would lend assistance and could danger Marcie,
therefore Al would be liable.

(3) Superseding Intervening Forces. The defendant will attempt to show that
some act has intervened after his action and that the second act caused the injury.
This is "superseding intervening forces." This doctrine is close kin to
proximate cause.

27

You might also like