Presentation on theme: " 1. Duty-The accused wrongdoer owed a duty of care to the injured person 2. Breach of Duty- the defendant’s conduct breached that duty 3. Causation-defendant’s."— Presentation transcript:
1. Duty-The accused wrongdoer owed a duty of care to the injured person 2. Breach of Duty- the defendant’s conduct breached that duty 3. Causation-defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff’s harm 4. Damages-the plaintiff suffered actual injuries or losses McDonald’s Hot coffee suit
Idealized-a person who acts the way the community expects members to act Certain professions have a higher standard Minors driving are held to same standards as adults
Cause in fact-harm would not have occurred with out the act Proximate cause-close connection between the harm in question and the act that caused it Example: You wrongfully cross the yellow line and hit a truck. Truck carries dynamite and kills a person two blocks away. Are you negligently responsible for the death?
Must prove actual damages-plaintiff is entitled to be restored to pre-injury condition Damages- the money that may be required to accomplish this
negligence-people can recover damages for injuries if they prove each of the elements by a preponderance of evidence 1. Contributory defense: cannot receive damages if you in any way contributed to the harm suffered 2. Comparative negligence-used in most states- dividing the loss according to the degree to which each person is responsible 3. Assumption of Risk defense-person voluntarily encounters a known danger and decides to accept the risk of that danger.
Liability without proof of fault Risk or danger cannot be eliminated even by reasonable care. Example: demolition of downtown building-even if demolition is necessary, use of dynamite is knowingly dangerous and any injuries that result are the fault of the company without proof
Result of toxic chemicals or hazardous materials Owners are strictly liable Defective products-Product Liability Manufacturers have a legal responsibility for those injured by their products. Drives cost of products up due to research and testing.
DON’T have to prove fault DO have to prove causation and damage Defendant could try to show no causation or damage occurred. Defendant can prove that consumer misused a product or failed to follow the safety precautions
Ideally, tort law should… 1. compensate harmed persons 2. fairly allocate benefits to victims and costs to wrongdoers. 3. deter risky and dangerous behavior
$$ awards too costly Lawyers cost a lot and get all the money Disputes take too long to settle
Binding arbitration-to avoid cost of trial No fault auto insurance-no need for civil suit in an accident Statute of limitations-claim filed within 2/3 years of incident Cap of damages-especially punitive damages and pain & suffering damages
--Cases without merit-belief that many bring cases such as these to court against companies that will knowingly settle out of court
Great Britain-losing party pays the other sides legal fees Reformers argue this would not be a hardship on plaintiffs with strong claims because if they won the defendant would pay both sides legal fees Con: Plaintiffs would be reluctant to sue- end in court order to pay both fees Con: average lawsuit damages $30,000, very few really costly payouts
Con-Incentive to produce safe products and services Careful development and testing Safety training Proper warning for consumers