Скачать с ютуб How to Analyze Negligence on a Torts Essay (Pt. 1): Palsgraf & The Duty of Care в хорошем качестве

How to Analyze Negligence on a Torts Essay (Pt. 1): Palsgraf & The Duty of Care

📚 LAW SCHOOL & BAR EXAM PREP Law school prep: https://studicata.com/get-started/law... Bar exam prep: https://studicata.com/get-started/bar... 🤝 CONNECT WITH YOUR INSTRUCTOR Michael's Instagram:   / studicataguy   ❤️ COMMUNITY & REVIEWS Community: https://studicata.com/groups/community Testimonials: https://studicata.com/testimonials-an... Submit a review: https://shoutout.studicata.com 📱 TECH iOS app: https://studicata.com/ios Android app: https://studicata.com/android 📣 ABOUT Studicata provides a fresher, more relatable way to prep for law school finals and the bar exam. With top-rated video lectures, exam walkthrough videos, outlines, study guides, strategy guides, essay practice exams, multiple-choice assessments, performance tracking, and more—Studicata has you covered with everything you need to ace your finals and pass the bar exam with confidence. Email: [email protected] Learn more: https://studicata.com — 🎬 VIDEO INFO How to Analyze Negligence on a Torts Essay (Pt. 1): Palsgraf & The Duty of Care NEGLIGENCE To hold a defendant liable for negligence, the plaintiff must establish the following four elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to conform to a specific standard of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s harm; and (4) the plaintiff sustained actual damages or loss. DUTY (Part 1 of the Duty Analysis: Does the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care?) The majority rule is that a duty of care is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs. Cardozo Approach Under Justice Cardozo’s majority opinion in Palsgraf, the defendant owes a duty to plaintiffs who are within the zone of foreseeable danger. Andrews/Restatement Approach Under Justice Andrew’s dissent in Palsgraf and the Restatement, if the defendant can foresee harm to anyone as a result of his negligence, then a duty is owed to every person harmed as a proximate cause of his breach. Under the Andrews/Restatement approach, the issue of whether the plaintiff was foreseeable is reserved for the analysis of proximate cause. STANDARD OF CARE (Part 2 of the Duty Analysis: If so, what is the standard of care owed?) Once we establish whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the next part of the duty analysis is to determine what standard of care the defendant owed to the plaintiff. In most cases, the standard of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is that of a reasonably prudent person under like circumstances as measured by an objective standard (the reasonable person standard of care). However, the standard of care owed may change when certain types of defendants are involved or a statute defines a specific standard of care as a matter of law (negligence per se). Traditionally, the standard of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is subject to modification if the defendant is: a child, a professional, a physician, a common carrier or innkeeper, an automobile driver, a bailor or bailee, or a possessor or owner of land.