Elements of Negligence
Lawsuits based on
negligence represent most of the civil cases filed in American courts. A person is negligent when his actions fall
below a legally recognized standard of care, resulting in injury to another.[1] All persons have duties to each other.[2] Duties include conforming behavior to meet
appropriate minimum standards. This
standard helps to protect individuals from unreasonable harm caused by others.[3] This legal standard varies from state to
state and varies depending on the type of negligence being alleged. To win a lawsuit against an allegedly
negligent defendant, the plaintiff must prove four elements. The elements are (1) duty (2) breach (3) causation and (4) damages.[4]
The first element is duty.
A duty is an obligation imposed on all persons in society to exercise
reasonable care in all their dealings. Generally,
the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the defendant owed them this duty.[5] If the plaintiffs cannot prove they were owed
a legal duty then there can be no breach of that duty[6] and no recovery in a
negligence claim.[7]
Certain individuals
have a heightened duty of care to others.
This means they not only have a duty to act reasonably, they also have a
duty to protect and provide aide to others.
The classic example is that of parent-child. Parents have a duty to their minor children
to not expose their children to unnecessary risk and to take affirmative steps to protect them.
In many states, this type
of duty is also imposed on employers to their employees; schools to pupils;
hotels to guests; jailers to prisoners; and common carriers (i.e. buses,
trains, and airplanes) to passengers. In
the workplace, practically all states impose duties on employers to control
their employees. Employers may be held liable
for the actions of its employees or for their own negligence in hiring careless
employees.[8]
A heightened duty is
also placed on professionals. Society
expects doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants, and other professionals to
performed their job with skill superior to that of the nonprofessional. When they don’t, malpractice may occur. The standard of care in malpractice cases is
often established by the expert testimony of others in that profession, by law,
or by industry standards.
There is a special duty
imposed on landowners. The duty is
dependent upon the legal status of the person injured on the land. If injured people enter land with permission,
they are categorized as either an invitee
or a licensee. People on premises without permission they
are trespassers.
An invitee is owed the highest duty of care. A business
invitee is a person who is on the land to conduct commercial transactions. For example, customers dining in restaurants
are invitees. A public invitee is a person on public land or land held open to the
public. Park goers, for example, are
public invitees. A landowner has a duty
to take reasonable care to prevent injuries to any invitee on their premises.[9] This includes a requirement to frequently
inspect the land to ensure that it is safe.
This is why department stores and grocery stores have risk management
associates who monitor the premises looking for possible dangers to customers.[10]
A licensee is a person on the premises of another for non-commercial
purposes. Someone attending a party at
the home of another is likely a licensee.
Landowners owe licensees a duty to warn them of known concealed dangers
on the property. An example of a concealed danger would be a loose step on the
porch or a very slippery walkway that is not obvious to a visitor. Unlike that owed to an invitee, there is no
duty to inspect for undiscovered hazards.[11]
A trespasser is someone who enters the land of another without
permission. Trespassers are owed the
lowest duty. In fact, virtually no duty is
owed to unknown trespassers. Most
states, however, impose a duty to known (and foreseeable) trespassers to warn
them of known artificial dangers on the property.[12] So, while there is no duty to warn of natural
dangers such as lakes or poisonous plants, the homeowner may not place booby
traps or electric fences in places where there are foreseeable trespassers
without warning them of the danger.
Many states impose a special
duty on landowners to trespassing children.
Trespassing children may get the same protection as a licensee or
invitee if there is an attractive
nuisance on the property. An attractive
nuisance is a dangerous artificial condition that may attract children. There
is a duty to exercise reasonable care so as to avoid harming the trespassing
children.[13] Common examples of attractive nuisances are
swimming pools and construction sites. Therefore, for example, the owner would
have a responsibility to put a fence up around a swimming pool that would keep
children out. A sign that warns children to keep out may not suffice since it
is foreseeable that they could ignore it.
The second element is breach of duty. If a legal duty is owed, the plaintiff must
then show that the defendant breach that duty.
A breach occurs when the defendant’s conduct falls below that of the
reasonably prudent person. The “reasonably
prudent person” is a fictitious creation used to measure whether certain
behavior is too risky.[14] Courts ask:
Would a reasonable person have behaved the way the defendant behaved if
faced with a similar situation?” If the
answer is “yes” then the defendant did not breach his duty.
The third element is causation. Causation links the defendant’s breach of
duty to the plaintiff’s injuries. The
causation inquiry asks whether a party should be held responsible for his actions
and the injury these actions produced. Causation
is broken down into two categories, actual cause and proximate cause.[15] To recover, the injured party must prove that
the defendant was the actual cause and the proximate cause of the injuries
sustained.
The actual cause can
normally be determined by applying a “but-for” analysis. “But-for” the defendant’s actions, the
accident would not have happened. This
is a very straightforward inquiry and rarely leads to uncertain conclusions.
A defendant, however,
may not be liable for injuries caused by events that he set in motion once a “cut
off” point is reached. Even if a set the events in motion (the actual cause),
he may not be responsible if the injury was too remote from the negligent
behavior. In such a case, the defendant is not deemed to be the “proximate”
cause of the injuries. Typically, situations
where responsibility has been cut off due to lack of proximate causation occur
when other unforeseeable events (such as explained weather phenomena or the
criminal acts of a third person) that are outside of the defendant’s control
contribute substantially to the plaintiff’s injury.[16]
Let’s look at an example: Johnny Baseball was negligently hitting
baseballs in a public park one afternoon.
One of the balls struck a woman walking with her grandson on a
pedestrian walkway. The impact from the
ball knocked the woman unconscious. The
woman is transported to the hospital where it is determined that, though her
injuries are not life threatening, she needs emergency surgery. While awaiting surgery, a storm enters the
area and the hospital is struck by lightning, setting the top floor of the
hospital ablaze. The woman suffers
severe lung damage from smoke inhalation and dies one week later. While it’s
true that, but-for Johnny Baseball’s negligence, the woman would not have been
in the hospital on the day of the fire, Johnny’s liability would likely be “cut
off” by the lightning and subsequent fire that lead to the injury that killed
the woman. The injury that killed the
woman was unforeseeable to Johnny. Thus,
Johnny is not the proximate cause of her injuries and will not be held liable
for her death.
The final element is damages.
Damages are the measure of
what was lost or damaged as a result of the defendant’s negligence. To recover, the plaintiff must show that he
suffered a specific harm or loss. Damages
can include financial compensation for pain and suffering, medical expenses,
lost wages, and property loss.[17] Occasionally, a court may award punitive
damages. Punitive damages are an amount
over and above those due the plaintiff.
Punitive damages are usually only available where the defendant engaged
in extremely reckless conduct.
[1] Restatement Second, Torts §§ 4, 5.
[2] See
Browning-Ferris Industries of Georgia, Inc. v. Pitts, 520 S.E.2d 539 (1999)
noting that there is a general duty owed to “all the world” to avoid
unreasonable risk of harm.
[3] 74 Am. Jur. 2d Torts § 10.
[4] 74 Am. Jur. 2d Torts § 7.
[5] Restatement Second, Torts §§ 281(a),
304. See
also Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Gomez, 146 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2004).
[6] See
Luis v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 142 F.Supp.3d 873 (N.D. Cal.
2015).
[7] 57A Am. Jur. 2d Negligence § 74.
[8] See
generally 57B Am. Jur. 2d Negligence § 1096. See
also Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459
(Fla. 2005).
[9] 62 Am. Jur. 2d Premises Liability §
160.
[10] See
generally Rhonda S. Kaye, Liability
of Owner or Operator of Store or Similar Place of Business for Injury Resulting
from Defective or Dangerous Shelves, Displays, Racks, Counters, or the Like,
1 A.L.R.6th 297 (Originally published in 2005).
[11] See
62 Am. Jur. 2d Premises Liability § 188 noting that active vigilance is not
required on the part of a property owner to see that the premises are kept safe
for the benefit of licensees.
[12] Restatement Second, Torts § 336.
[13] Restatement Second, Torts § 339; 62 Am.
Jur. 2d Premises Liability § 278.
[14] See,
Restatement Second, Torts §§ 283, Comment e, 291, 292, Comment b.
[15] 57A Am. Jur. 2d Negligence § 414.
[16] See
generally 57A Am. Jur. 2d Negligence § 559.
[17] Restatement Second, Torts § 901; 22 Am.
Jur. 2d Damages § 137.