Negligence cheatsheet
NEGLIGENCE
I: The legal issue here is whether Defendant is negligent towards Plaintiff
R: To prove negligence, P must prove 3 elements: (1) duty of care; (2) breach of duty of care; (3) causation &remoteness.
I. DUTY OF CARE
I: Prove physical injury/ not (Neither his body nor Properties were damaged)
- Therefore, the legal issue is whether D owed P a DOC for...
II. BREACH OF the DUTY OF CARE:
I: The legal issue is whether D failed to meet the standard of care to P
R: A D has breached the DOC if he failed to act as a reasonable, ordinarily careful person would have acted in the same situation. To tell how a ROCP would act, we apply 4 Romeo factors (cited in Romeo v. Conservation Commission)
A: Applying 4 these factors to this case:
1. Magnitude of risk (How dangerous is the action)
- What is worst thing that can happen? If D … (careless action), the worst thing that can occur is that … (tell 3 things) because ... (list the main reasons). Dangerous degree?
- How many people would be affected? There are a lot of people could be affected such as ... so it might affect many people.
2. Probability of risk (What is the chance someone is going to get hurt)
The chance for people to be injured in this situation is not high because the reasonable person…to prevent …
(When it’s HIGH:
3. Difficulty & expense of eliminating of risk (Could D prevent the risk)
It was very easy and could worth nothing for him to ... or simply ... (tell 2-3 solutions – WHY?)
4. Other conflicting priorities (Did D have good evidence to do careless action) The reason for his careless action is.... However, this is not a good reason because...
C: Based on the above analysis and compare to O’ Dwyer v. Leo Buring Pty Ltd’s case, a ROC(P) would not ... (careless action) to avoid serious consequence like P’s case. D didn’t act as a ROCP. Therefore, D breached DOC/failed to meet the SOC
III CAUSATION and REMOTENESS:
a) Causation:
I: Whether D caused
I: The legal issue here is whether Defendant is negligent towards Plaintiff
R: To prove negligence, P must prove 3 elements: (1) duty of care; (2) breach of duty of care; (3) causation &remoteness.
I. DUTY OF CARE
I: Prove physical injury/ not (Neither his body nor Properties were damaged)
- Therefore, the legal issue is whether D owed P a DOC for...
II. BREACH OF the DUTY OF CARE:
I: The legal issue is whether D failed to meet the standard of care to P
R: A D has breached the DOC if he failed to act as a reasonable, ordinarily careful person would have acted in the same situation. To tell how a ROCP would act, we apply 4 Romeo factors (cited in Romeo v. Conservation Commission)
A: Applying 4 these factors to this case:
1. Magnitude of risk (How dangerous is the action)
- What is worst thing that can happen? If D … (careless action), the worst thing that can occur is that … (tell 3 things) because ... (list the main reasons). Dangerous degree?
- How many people would be affected? There are a lot of people could be affected such as ... so it might affect many people.
2. Probability of risk (What is the chance someone is going to get hurt)
The chance for people to be injured in this situation is not high because the reasonable person…to prevent …
(When it’s HIGH:
3. Difficulty & expense of eliminating of risk (Could D prevent the risk)
It was very easy and could worth nothing for him to ... or simply ... (tell 2-3 solutions – WHY?)
4. Other conflicting priorities (Did D have good evidence to do careless action) The reason for his careless action is.... However, this is not a good reason because...
C: Based on the above analysis and compare to O’ Dwyer v. Leo Buring Pty Ltd’s case, a ROC(P) would not ... (careless action) to avoid serious consequence like P’s case. D didn’t act as a ROCP. Therefore, D breached DOC/failed to meet the SOC
III CAUSATION and REMOTENESS:
a) Causation:
I: Whether D caused