Negligence 101: Class 2 Analyzing the element of Duty,: Restatement, Third of Torts. скачать в хорошем качестве

Negligence 101: Class 2 Analyzing the element of Duty,: Restatement, Third of Torts.

This lecture, narrated by Professor Stephanie Ledesma Washington, presents a comprehensive and doctrinally rigorous explanation of Element One of negligence: Duty, using the modern analytical framework of the Restatement (Third) of Torts. Moving beyond the historical divide established in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad between Justice Cardozo and Justice Andrews, this class introduces students to the contemporary three-step method courts now employ to determine whether a defendant owes a duty of reasonable care. Professor Washington explains that modern duty analysis begins with Section 7 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which presumes a duty of care when a defendant’s affirmative conduct creates or increases the risk of physical harm. If the defendant did not create the risk and merely failed to act, the analysis proceeds to Section 37, which establishes the general rule of no duty for nonfeasance. The inquiry does not end there. Courts must then examine whether one of the recognized exceptions in Sections 38 through 44 reinstates a duty, including duties based on statute, prior conduct creating a continuing risk, special relationships with plaintiffs, duties to third parties arising from special relationships, voluntary undertakings, and situations in which a defendant takes charge of a helpless or imperiled person. The lecture carefully distinguishes malfeasance from nonfeasance, clarifies the difference between duty and breach, and warns students not to confuse legislatively imposed duties with negligence per se. Throughout the session, Professor Washington applies the three-step framework to key cases such as Yania v. Bigan, Washington v. Louisiana Power & Light, and Rowland v. Christian, demonstrating how courts analyze duty in both risk-creating and bystander scenarios. She also explains the significance of Rowland states that have adopted modern duty analysis and contrasts them with jurisdictions that continue to rely on traditional premises-liability categories. This video is designed for law students studying Torts, bar exam candidates preparing for negligence questions, and anyone seeking a clear and structured understanding of modern duty doctrine. The central lesson of this class is that under the Restatement (Third) of Torts, duty is no longer determined by identifying a foreseeable plaintiff within a “zone of danger,” but by asking whether the defendant created a risk of harm and, if not, whether the law nonetheless imposes responsibility through one of its recognized exceptions. This lecture concludes by reinforcing a practical rule statement for modern negligence analysis and preparing students for the next stage of the negligence inquiry. Professor Washington emphasizes that duty is only the first of four required elements—duty, breach, causation, and damages—and that failure to establish any one of them is fatal to a negligence claim.