Basic Legal Terminology Continued (2)

Question	Answer
breach of duty	Negligence arises from a breach of duty, which is a failure to act in accordance with responsibilities defined by law. Civil law has established varying degrees of duty, which are in turn based on the level of care-that is, attention, caution, or safeguard-appropriate to specific situations. Under the sudden emergency doctrine, the standard or degree of care required of a person caught unaware in an emergency situation is less than the degree of care ordinarily required if the person had time to think before acting.
The varying degrees of negligence associated with specific degrees of care include:	Ordinary negligence, defined as a failure of the degree of care, known as ordinary care or reasonable care, which a person of ordinary intelligence and judgment would exercise under a specific set of circumstances and conditions • Negligence in law or negligence per se, defined as a failure to observe a duty or standard of care that has been established by law-such as the duty to stop at a stop sign-resulting directly in injury to another person • Willful negligence, defined as reckless indifference toward a person's safety, demonstrated by the failure to exercise ordinary care to prevent injury in the face of imminent danger • Gross negligence, defined as intentionally acting or failing to act, with a deliberate disregard for the welfare of other people
cont......	• Culpable negligence, defined as the willful and wanton creation of an unreasonable risk that will probably cause death or injury to another person Negligent homicide, defined as causing death through negligent or reckless conduct that is demonstrably less intentional than the conduct involved in the tort of wrongful death The duty of reasonable care doesn't normally extend to trespassers. The duty owed to a trespasser consists simply of refraining from willful, wanton, and reckless conduct. An exception to the legal duty owed to trespassers is established in situations involving an attractive nuisance-- a structure, feature, or apparatus that poses a danger to young children, yet is sufficiently interesting to tempt them to trespass in order to examine or explore it.
attractive nuisance doctrine	was established to protect young children by creating a duty for property owners to refrain from mere ordinary negligence-rather than willful, wanton, and reckless conduct-toward children enticed to trespass by the presence of an attractive nuisance This means that the landowner with an attractive nuisance must guard against both the lower standard of willful, wanton, and reckless conduct (like covering a swimming pool with a tarp that collapses when stood upon, drowning the trespasser), to the higher standard of ordinary negligence (a swimming pool cover that would protect a trespasser but was improperly installed, leading to injury for the trespasser).
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur	a Latin term meaning "the thing speaks for itself," can sometimes be used to prove that the plaintiff sustained injury by an act that normally wouldn't occur unless someone were negligent. Under this doctrine, the simple fact that an act causing injury occurred can serve to show that the defendant was negligent.
Proximate cause	is the legal cause of an injury (even though that injury may have had more than one cause) In addition to demonstrating damage and negligence, the plaintiff must also prove causation-that is, that the negligent act of the defendant was the direct, or proximate, cause of injury to the plaintiff. In determining proximate cause, the court asks whether the consequences arising from negligence could reasonably have been anticipated. Such consequences are typically referred to as foreseeable, and any injury arising from them is known as a foreseeable injury.
unavoidable casualty	The court may deny damages because a reasonable person couldn't have foreseen loss or damage. In such cases, loss or damage is known as an unavoidable casualty or an unavoidable accident.
unavoidable cause	A cause that couldn't have been avoided through reasonable or ordinary attention
supervening cause	damages may be denied if another event intervenes between the proximate cause and the act that results in loss or damage For example, a car owner who leaves the keys in a car may be considered negligent and therefore liable for any injury arising from such negligence. However, if a thief steals the car and injures someone while driving negligently, the act of leaving the key in the car is replaced as proximate cause by the supervening cause of the thiefs negligent driving. The injured party may therefore seek damages only from the car thief, not the car's owner.
Assumption of risk	frequently offered in cases involving sports or recreational activities, holds that the injured party chose to enter into a situation or activity fully aware of the potential dangers involved
Contributory negligence	denies liability for all damages on the grounds that negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributed to the injury. A reckless or drunken driver, for example, may not be able to win damages from a driver who negligently ran a stop sign. The defense of contributory negligence may be denied in certain cases under a rule known as the last clear chance doctrine. Under this doctrine, a defendant who had the last clear chance to avoid injuring the plaintiff is liable even though the plaintiff was also negligent. Negligence under the last clear chance doctrine is sometimes referred to as supervening negligence.
Comparative negligence	an alternative to contributory negligence, compares the negligence of both parties. Under this doctrine, the plaintiffs damages are reduced rather than denied. Damages are reduced in proportion to the level of the plaintiffs negligence
product liability	Loss or damage caused by defective merchandise The defective product in itself represents a breach of warranty, a violation of the actual or implied promise of the product's fitness for a particular purpose, known as a warranty.
malicious	Intending to cause harm
negligence	Failure to act that results in injury
duty	Obligation established by law
liability	Responsibility for injury
willful	intentional
wanton	without concern for consequences
fault	violation of a duty
care	attention or caution
tort	a wrong against an individual
foreseeable	Reasonably anticipated

Next up

Basic Legal Terminology Continued (2)

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Shacondala Heffner over 4 years ago