Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not

do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do,
under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.It is the failure to use
ordinary or reasonable care.Ordinary or reasonable care is that care which persons
of ordinary prudence would use in order to avoid injury to themselves or others under
circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. The person whose conduct
we set up as a standard is not the extraordinarily cautious individual, nor the
exceptionally skillful one, but a person of reasonable and ordinary prudence.One test
that is helpful in determining whether or not a person was negligent is to ask and
answer the question whether or not, if a person of ordinary prudence had been in the
same situation and possessed of the same knowledge, he or she would have
foreseen or anticipated that someone might have been injured by or as a result of his
or her action or inaction. If the answer to that question is "yes", and if the action or
inaction reasonably could have been avoided, then not to avoid it would be
negligence.

Q. HOW CAUTIOUS MUST SOMEONE BE?

A. The amount of caution required of a person in the exercise of ordinary care

depends upon the conditions that are apparent or that should be apparent to a
reasonably prudent person under circumstances similar to those shown by the
evidence.

Q. CAN I ASSUME OTHER PEOPLE WILL BE CAREFUL AND FOLLOW THE

LAW?

A. Every person who, himself, is exercising ordinary care, has a right to assume that
every other person will perform his duty and obey the law, and in the absence of
reasonable cause for thinking otherwise, it is not negligence for such a person to fail
to anticipate an accident which can occur only as a result of a violation of law or duty
by another person.

Q. WHAT ROLE DOES A LOCAL CUSTOM PLAY IN DETERMINING IF SOMEONE

IS CAREFUL?

A. Evidence as to whether or not a person con...

... middle of paper ...

...

Strict Liability
Strict liability is different from a negligence theory in that the injured plaintiff need not
show knowledge or fault on the manufacturer's part. The plaintiff must show only that
the product was sold or distributed by a defendant, and that the product was
unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the defendant's hands in order to prove
liability on the part of such defendant. The behavior or knowledge (or lack of
knowledge) of a products liability defendant regarding the dangerous nature of a
product is not an issue for consideration under a strict liability theory. Strict liability
concerns only the condition of the product itself. In contrast, a negligence theory
concerns not only the product, but also the manufacturer's knowledge and conduct.

"Strict liability", however, does not mean "absolute liability". Simply because a person
is injured, he or she cannot assert strict liability and automatically recover. Instead,
the injured consumer in asserting strict liability, still must prove his or her right to
compensation by showing that the unreasonable dangerous condition of the product
was what actually caused the injuries sustained.L