Negligence: Moe V. Barry
1. NEGLIGENCE
The issue is whether Moe is likely to prevail on a negligence claim against Barry.
An action for negligence requires Plaintiff to prove that Defendant had a duty of reasonable care, Defendant breached that duty, the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and some sort of damage occurred to the plaintiff.
a. Duty
A general rule is that the defendant whose actions expose others to an unreasonable risk of harm owes a general duty of care to any foreseeable plaintiffs, which a reasonable and prudent person would provide in the same or similar circumstances.
Here, Barry, who is a barber, he has a duty to provide his customers with a safe and competent shave and not to expose them to unnecessary …show more content…
b. Breach
Breach is a question of fact that must be proven by showing that some behavior occurred on the part of the defendant and defendant’s behavior was unreasonable. The general standard of care is that of a reasonably prudent person
Here, Moe will argue that a reasonably prudent person who is a professional barber, would take precautions to ensure the safety of his customers, and rather than using a straight razor, would switch to an electric shaver, Barry breached his duty to him, and exposes him to a dangerous cut. Furthermore, Moe will argue, that although a straight razor was the industry standard in the past when there was no alternative shaver, and since an electric shaver is giving as good as a shave as a straight razor, Barry could get a safer, electric shaver.
Therefore, because Barry failed to replace his outdated straight razor with an electric shaver, Barry was unreasonable, and Moe will likely be able to establish a breach.
c. Actual Cause
Actual cause, also referred to as causation-in-fact, may be established if Plaintiff can show that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s …show more content…
When Moe unexpectedly moved, Barry created a deep cut on Moe’s throat.
Therefore, Moe would not have been injured but for the Barry use of the straight razor. Thus, Moe will be able to show actual causation.
d. Proximate Cause
Proximate cause refers to the chain of foreseeability between the defendant’s action and plaintiff’s injuries. In order to prove proximate cause, Moe must show that his injury was reasonably foreseeable. Here, Moe will argue that it was reasonably foreseeable that a customer may move, and Barry will cut him with a straight razor. On the other hand, Barry may argue that he could not foresee that Moe will jump while watching a baseball game on his phone. However, most likely Moe will prevail, because Barry was aware of the danger using a straight razor for shaving and could prevent that by investing in a new electric shaver. Therefore, Moe will likely prevail on this point as well.
By showing but for causation and the foreseeability of his injury, Moe will be able to establish the element of causation.
e.
The issue is whether Moe is likely to prevail on a negligence claim against Barry.
An action for negligence requires Plaintiff to prove that Defendant had a duty of reasonable care, Defendant breached that duty, the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and some sort of damage occurred to the plaintiff.
a. Duty
A general rule is that the defendant whose actions expose others to an unreasonable risk of harm owes a general duty of care to any foreseeable plaintiffs, which a reasonable and prudent person would provide in the same or similar circumstances.
Here, Barry, who is a barber, he has a duty to provide his customers with a safe and competent shave and not to expose them to unnecessary …show more content…
b. Breach
Breach is a question of fact that must be proven by showing that some behavior occurred on the part of the defendant and defendant’s behavior was unreasonable. The general standard of care is that of a reasonably prudent person
Here, Moe will argue that a reasonably prudent person who is a professional barber, would take precautions to ensure the safety of his customers, and rather than using a straight razor, would switch to an electric shaver, Barry breached his duty to him, and exposes him to a dangerous cut. Furthermore, Moe will argue, that although a straight razor was the industry standard in the past when there was no alternative shaver, and since an electric shaver is giving as good as a shave as a straight razor, Barry could get a safer, electric shaver.
Therefore, because Barry failed to replace his outdated straight razor with an electric shaver, Barry was unreasonable, and Moe will likely be able to establish a breach.
c. Actual Cause
Actual cause, also referred to as causation-in-fact, may be established if Plaintiff can show that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s …show more content…
When Moe unexpectedly moved, Barry created a deep cut on Moe’s throat.
Therefore, Moe would not have been injured but for the Barry use of the straight razor. Thus, Moe will be able to show actual causation.
d. Proximate Cause
Proximate cause refers to the chain of foreseeability between the defendant’s action and plaintiff’s injuries. In order to prove proximate cause, Moe must show that his injury was reasonably foreseeable. Here, Moe will argue that it was reasonably foreseeable that a customer may move, and Barry will cut him with a straight razor. On the other hand, Barry may argue that he could not foresee that Moe will jump while watching a baseball game on his phone. However, most likely Moe will prevail, because Barry was aware of the danger using a straight razor for shaving and could prevent that by investing in a new electric shaver. Therefore, Moe will likely prevail on this point as well.
By showing but for causation and the foreseeability of his injury, Moe will be able to establish the element of causation.
e.