| A | B |
|---|
| negligence | Injury that is caused by a person’s mere carelessness. |
| strict liability | According to strict liability, if ultra-hazardous activities injure someone or damage property, the people engaged in these activities will be held liable, regardless of how careful they were. |
| breach of duty - the second element of negligence | The failure to use the degree of care required under the circumstances.To determine if the alleged tortfeasor has met the appropriate standard of care, the court uses the reasonable person test. |
| proximate cause - the third element of negligence | The legal connection between unreasonable conduct and the resulting harm. Without the unreasonable conduct, the result would not have occurred. |
| contributory negligence- (A defense to negligence) | Behavior by the plaintiff that helps cause his or her injuries. Under this doctrine,. If the defendant can prove that the plaintiff’s own negligence helped cause the injuries, then the plaintiff loses the lawsuit. |
| comparative negligence- (A defense to negligence) | The negligence of each party is compared under this doctrine,and the amount of the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the percent of his or her negligence |
| assumption of risk- (A defense to negligence) | If the defendant can show the plaintiff knew of the risk involved and still took the chance of being injured; he or she may claim assumption of risk as a defense. Ex: Fan gets hit by foul ball at a baseball game. |
| duty of care- The first element of negligence | A determination that a legal duty exists between parties must be made to establish liability through negligence. This is solely a question of whether the tortfeasor should have reasonably foreseen a risk of harm to the injured party. |
| Actual Harm- The fourth element of negligence | The plaintiff must have suffered some actual harm or injury. If the plaintiff didn’t suffer any harm, there can be no lawsuit. |
| elimination of any 1 of the 4 elements of negligence (a defense to negligence) | With this defense, if you can prove that any one of the elements of negligence did not apply to the defendants case, then the defendant can not be sued. |
| ultrahazardous activities | Some activities are so dangerous that the law will apply neither the principles of negligence nor the rules of intentional torts to them.Using explosives, keeping wild animals, and storing highly flammable liquids in densely populated areas are all examples of these activities. |
| product liability | In recent years, the doctrine of strict liability has also been applied to these types of cases. When people are injured from defects in products that they bought in the marketplace, the firm that manufactures the products is liable for injuries, regardless of fault.. |
| A limit to product liability | Most courts have held that product liability does not apply if the seller of the defective product does not usually engage in the sale of such items |
