2/24/16
Negligence
A. ElementsofNegligenceAction
B. NegligenceFormula
C. DeterminingDuty
D. ProvingNegligence(Duty/Breach)
DeterminingDuty(SOC)
REST(2D)TORTS§285
1.  RPPStandard
2.  ApplyingaRuleofLaw
3.  Applyinglegislationnotexpressly
definingSOCtobeusedina
negligenceaction
4.  Applyinglegislationexpressly
articulatingSOCinanegligenceaction
1
2/24/16
UsingNon-TortStatutetoEstablishDuty
1.  WhenMayaNon-TortStatuteBeUsedto
EstablishDuty?
—
—
—
—
Osbornev.McMasters
Sanchezv.Wal-Mart
Stachniewiczv.Mar-CamCorp.
Perryv.S.N.andS.N.
2.  WhatistheEffectofProofWhenaNonTortStatuteisUsedtoEstablishDuty?
Perryv.S.N.andS.N.
1.  Thepartyseekingtoprovethe
violationisamemberoftheclassthe
legislatureintendedtoprotectand
2.  Thehazardthatoccurredwasonethe
legislatureintendedtopreventand
3.  Impositionoftortliabilityappropriate
2
2/24/16
UsingNon-TortStatutetoEstablishDuty
1.  WhenMayaNon-TortStatuteBeUsedto
EstablishDuty?
—
—
—
—
Osbornev.McMasters
Sanchezv.Wal-Mart
Stachniewiczv.Mar-CamCorp.
Perryv.S.N.andS.N.
2.  WhatistheEffectofProofWhenaNonTortStatuteisUsedtoEstablishDuty?
Zeniv.Anderson
EffectofProofofaStatute’sViolation
A.  RebuttablePresumptionof(orPrimaFacie)
Negligence
B.  NegligencePerSe
C.  EvidenceofNegligence
3
2/24/16
RebuttablePresumptionof
(orprimafacie)negligence
—  Proofofdutyandbreachasamatteroflaw
thatmayberebutted
—  Onlyrebuttableuponashowingofcredible
excusebypartyviolatingstatute
—  Factfinderdeterminesvalidityofexcuse
NegligencePerSe
—  Unexcusedviolationis“negligencein
itself”
—  Courtmakesdeterminationregarding
validityoftheexcuseindeciding
whethertoapplystatute
4
2/24/16
Someevidenceofnegligence
—  Mereevidenceofnegligence
—  “Statutorycustom”
Teplyv.Lincoln
— Negligencepersejurisdiction
— Legalexcuserequired
5
2/24/16
EstablishingaStandardofCare
1.RPP
Duty
2RuleofLaw
3.Statutefor
Non-Tort
Purpose
4.Statutefor
Negligence
DeterminingDuty
1. TheRPP
2. RulesofLaw
3. ApplyingNon-TortStatute
4. ApplyingTort-SpecificStatute
—  E.g.DramShopActs
6
2/24/16
DramShopAct
Aperson“whoknowinglysells,furnishes,orservesalcoholic
beveragestoapersonwhoisinastateofnoticeable
intoxication,knowingthatsuchpersonwillsoonbedriving
amotorvehicle,maybecomeliableforinjuryordamage
causedbyorresultingfromtheintoxicationofsuch…
personwhenthesale,furnishing,orservingisthe
proximatecauseofsuchinjuryordamage.”
GA.CODEANN.§51-1-40(b)(2009).
Negligence
A. ElementsofNegligenceAction
B. NegligenceFormula
C. DeterminingDuty
D. ProvingNegligence(Duty/Breach)
7
2/24/16
Goddardv.Boston&MaineR.R.
— Insufficientevidencefromwhich
RR’snegligence(e.g.breachof
duty)maybeinferred
Anjouv.BostonElevatedRailway
— Directevidence?
—  evidenceoffactsoughttobeproved(e.g.
breachofduty)
— Circumstantialevidence?
—  evidencefromwhichfactsoughttobe
proved(e.g.,breachofduty)maybe
inferred
8
2/24/16
Wal-MartStores,Inc.v.Rosa
— Directevidence?
— Circumstantialevidence?
Wallacev.Wal-MartStores,Inc.
— Directevidence?
— Circumstantialevidence?
9
2/24/16
ProvingDuty&Breach
—  Directevidence
--evidenceofthefactsoughttobeproved
(e.g.,breachofduty)
—  Circumstantialevidence
--evidencefromwhichfactsoughttobeproved
(e.g.,breachofduty)maybeinferred
—  Resipsaloquitur
Byrnev.Boadle
—  “Resipsaloquitur”–thethingspeaksfor
itself
1.  Defendanthadexclusivecontroloverthe
instrumentalityofharm
2.  andtheeventissortthatordinarilydoes
notoccurinabsenceofnegligence
10
2/24/16
ResIpsaLoquitur
—  evidentiaryrule
—  instrumentalityofharminexclusivecontrolof
defendantand
—  accidentnottypethatordinarilyoccursin
absenceofnegligence(breachofSOC)
=primafacieevidenceofdutyandbreach
—  BOPshiftstodefendanttoprovefacts
inconsistentwithnegligence
SafecoInsur.Co.v.MobilePower
1.  Fullmgmtandcontrolofinstrumentality
ofinjuryand
2. Accidentdoesnothappenw/o
negligenceofoneinfullmgmt
11
2/24/16
Ybarrav.Spangard
1.  Accidentdoesnotordinarilyhappen
withoutnegligence
2.  Instrumentalityofharmwithinexclusive
controlofdefendant
3.  Notcausedbyplaintiff
—  RILgivesrisetoinferenceofnegligence
—  Defendantmustmeet(rebut)inference
ProceduralEffectofRIL
—  Permitsaninferenceofnegligencebutdoesnot
requireafindingofnegligence
--Majority
—  Raisesapresumptionofnegligencethatdefendant
mustrebutors/heloses
—  Raisespresumptionorinferenceofnegligenceand
shiftsburdenofprooftodefendanttodisprovehis/
hernegligence
12
2/24/16
Negligence
1.  Duty
2.  Breach
3.  Causation
a)  Causationinfact
b)  Proximate/LegalCause
4.  Harm
Perkinsv.Texas&N.O.Ry.
— SineQuaNon
— “Butfor”
— Substantialfactor
— FactualCause
13
2/24/16
Rileyv.Salley
— “defendanttakesvictimashefinds
him”
— eggshellskullplaintiffrule
— defendantresponsibleforallnatural
andprobablephysicalconsequencesof
negligence
Reynoldsv.Tex.&Pac.Ry.
— possibilitythataccidentmighthave
happenedw/odefendant’snegligence
isinsufficienttobreakCIFchain
14
2/24/16
KramerService,Inc.v.Wilkins
— CIFconcernsprobabilities
— possibilityinsufficient
— posthocergopropterhoc
Herskovits
— Lossofchancedoctrine
15