THE NEGLIGENCE PRINCIPLE - University of Florida过失原则-佛罗里达大学.docVIP

PAGE 29 THE NEGLIGENCE PRINCIPLE A. Components of a Negligence Claim Fault Liability Brown v. Kendall C. The Standard of Care 1. Unreasonable Risk (i) Creation of Risk Adams v. Bullock (ii) Calibration of the Standard of Care United States v. Carroll Towing Co. The Reasonable Person Bethel v. New York City Transit Authority (i) Dangerous Instrumentalities (ii) Physical Disabilities (iii) Mentalability Diminished capacity Imbecility Insanity Intoxication (iv) Children (v) Elderly (vi) Beginners (vii) Emergency Doctrine The Roles of Judge and Jury Baltimore Ohio Railroad Co. v. Goodman Pokora v. Wabash Railway Co. Andrews v. United Airlines Inc. E. Particularizing the Standard of Care The Role of Custom Trimarco v. Klein The Role of Statutes (i) Violation as negligence per se Martin v. Herzog (1) Requirements for statute to apply (a) Class of persons protected (b) Relevance (c) Obsoleteness (ii) Exceptions Tedla v. Ellman (1) Justifications for non-compliance – defenses to negligence per se (a) Greater risk of harm (b) Inability or reasonable attempt to comply (c) Emergency (2) Limitations to compliance as a defense against negligence (iii) Licensing Statutes F. Proof of Negligence 1. Constructive Notice Negri v. Stop and Shopt Inc. Gordon v. American (i) Historical Evidence (ii) Business Practice Rule 2. Res Ipsa Loquitur (i) Requirements: Exclusive Control, Seldom Occurs Byrne v. Boadle (ii) Negating Other Causes: More Likely Than Not McDougald v. Perry (iii) Two Approaches: Inference of Negligence vs. Rebuttable Presumption (iv) Spoliation of Evidence: Spoliation Tort (v) Automobiles: Negligence per se (vi) Multiple Defendants: Special Relationship Ybarra v. Spangard (California, 1944) (vii) Pleading or Proving Specific Negligence (viii) Defendant’s Rebuttal: Due Care vs. Disproving a Requirement Medical Malpractice 1. Refined Standard of Care: Conformity with Common Practice Sheely v. Memoria