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

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

Law school and bar exam prep trusted by 100,000+ students: https://www.studicata.com 00:00 Four Elements of Negligence Negligence requires proving duty, breach, causation, and damages by a preponderance of the evidence. 00:56 Duty as a Two-Part Analysis Determining duty involves first deciding if a duty exists, then identifying the standard of care—this video focuses only on whether a duty exists. 02:39 Introducing Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad The classic Palsgraf case is used to illustrate how courts decide if a duty is owed. 03:38 The Palsgraf Facts A passenger boarding a moving train drops a briefcase of fireworks, causing an explosion that injures a distant bystander, Miss Palsgraf. 06:07 Cardozo’s Majority Opinion Cardozo applies the “zone of foreseeable danger” rule, holding that Miss Palsgraf was outside the foreseeable risk, so no duty was owed. 08:21 Andrews’ Dissenting Opinion Andrews argues that a duty is owed to anyone harmed as a proximate cause of negligence, moving foreseeability of the victim to the causation analysis. 10:14 Same Result, Different Reasoning Both judges likely reach the same outcome but place the foreseeability question in different parts of the negligence analysis. 12:24 Applying Both Approaches on an Exam To maximize points on a torts essay, you should apply both the Cardozo “zone of foreseeable danger” test and the Andrews causation-based approach. Thinking about using Studicata? You’re in good company. ✅ Trusted by 100,000+ law students and bar takers ✅ Featured and recommended by top law schools ✅ Named the 81st fastest-growing education company in the U.S. by Inc. See why so many future lawyers choose us to study smarter—not harder: 👉 https://www.studicata.com