HEN IS A PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER?
A. A plaintiff who was injured as as result of some negligent conduct on the part of a
defendant is entitled to recover compensation for such injury from that defendant.A
plaintiff is entitled to a verdict if jury finds1. That a defendant was negligent, and2. That
such negligence was a cause of injury to the plaintiff.
Q. WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE?
Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do,
or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do, under
circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.It is the failure to use ordinary or
reasonable care.Ordinary or reasonable care is that care which persons of ordinary
prudence would use in order to avoid injury to themselves or others under
circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. The person whose conduct we
set up as a standard is not the extraordinarily cautious individual, nor the exceptionally
skillful one, but a person of reasonable and ordinary prudence.One test that is helpful
in determining whether or not a person was negligent is to ask and answer the
question whether or not, if a person of ordinary prudence had been in the same
situation and possessed of the same knowledge, he or she would have foreseen or
anticipated that someone might have been injured by or as a result of his or her action
or inaction. If the answer to that question is "yes", and if the action or inaction
reasonably could have been avoided, then not to avoid it would be negligence.
Q. HOW CAUTIOUS MUST SOMEONE BE?
A. The amount of caution required of a person in the exercise of ordinary care depends
upon the conditions that are apparent or that should be apparent to a reasonably
prudent person under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.
Q. CAN I ASSUME OTHER PEOPLE WILL BE CAREFUL AND FOLLOW THE LAW?
A. Every person who, himself, is exercising ordinary care, has a right to assume that
every other person will perform his duty and obey the law, and in the absence of
reasonable cause for thinking otherwise, it is not negligence for such a person to fail to
anticipate an accident which can occur only as a result of a violation of law or duty by
another person.
Q. WHAT ROLE DOES A LOCAL CUSTOM PLAY IN DETERMINING IF SOMEONE
IS CAREFUL?
A. Evidence as to whether or not a person con...
... middle of paper ...
...
Strict Liability
Strict liability is different from a negligence theory in that the injured plaintiff need not
show knowledge or fault on the manufacturer's part. The plaintiff must show only that
the product was sold or distributed by a defendant, and that the product was
unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the defendant's hands in order to prove
liability on the part of such defendant. The behavior or knowledge (or lack of
knowledge) of a products liability defendant regarding the dangerous nature of a
product is not an issue for consideration under a strict liability theory. Strict liability
concerns only the condition of the product itself. In contrast, a negligence theory
concerns not only the product, but also the manufacturer's knowledge and conduct.
"Strict liability", however, does not mean "absolute liability". Simply because a person
is injured, he or she cannot assert strict liability and automatically recover. Instead, the
injured consumer in asserting strict liability, still must prove his or her right to
compensation by showing that the unreasonable dangerous condition of the product
was what actually caused the injuries sustained.
Take a sneak peek into this essay!
In this essay, the author
 Explains that plaintiffs who were injured as a result of negligent conduct on the part of
defendants are entitled to recover compensation for such injury.
 Explains that negligence is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care to avoid injury to
themselves or others under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.
 Explains that the amount of caution required of a person in the exercise of ordinary care
depends upon the conditions that are apparent or that should be apparent to reasonably
prudent people under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.
 Explains that every person exercising ordinary care has a right to assume that everyone
else will perform his duty and obey the law, and in the absence of reasonable cause for
thinking otherwise, it is not negligence to fail to anticipate an accident.
 Opines that evidence as to whether or not a person conformed to an established custom is
relevant and ought to be considered, but is not necessarily controlling on the question of
exercising ordinary care.
 Explains that a minor is not held to the same standard of conduct as an adult. he/she is only
required to exercise the degree of care which ordinarily is exercised by minors of similar
maturity, intelligence and capacity under similar circumstances.
 Explains that when a person's lawful employment requires that he work in dangerous
locations or places that involve unusual possibilities of injury, the necessities of such
situations limit the caution required of him by law.
 Explains that contributory negligence is negligence on the part of a plaintiff which,
combining with the negligence of the defendant, contributes to bringing about the injury. the
total amount of damages to which the plaintiff would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced.
 Explains that the law defines cause in its own particular way. a cause of injury, damage,
loss or harm is something that is a substantial factor in bringing about an injury.
 Explains that a negligence theory requires the plaintiff to prove four elements. first, it must
be shown that the defendant owed an obligation to the consumer and to bystanders likely to
be injured.
 Explains that there are three types of product defects that incur liability in manufacturers
and suppliers: design, manufacturing, and marketing defects.
 Explains that strict liability is different from a negligence theory in that the injured plaintiff
needs not show knowledge or fault on the manufacturer's part.