How to Analyze Negligence on a Torts Essay (Pt. 1): Palsgraf & The Duty of Care
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 сен 2024
- 📚 LAW SCHOOL & BAR EXAM PREP
Law school prep: studicata.com/...
Bar exam prep: studicata.com/...
🤝 CONNECT WITH YOUR INSTRUCTOR
Michael's Instagram: / studicataguy
❤️ COMMUNITY & REVIEWS
Community: studicata.com/...
Testimonials: studicata.com/...
Submit a review: shoutout.studi...
📱 TECH
iOS app: studicata.com/ios
Android app: studicata.com/...
📣 ABOUT
Studicata provides a fresher, more relatable way to prep for law school finals and the bar exam. With top-rated video lectures, exam walkthrough videos, outlines, study guides, strategy guides, essay practice exams, multiple-choice assessments, performance tracking, and more-Studicata has you covered with everything you need to ace your finals and pass the bar exam with confidence.
Email: info@studicata.com
Learn more: studicata.com
-
🎬 VIDEO INFO
How to Analyze Negligence on a Torts Essay (Pt. 1): Palsgraf & The Duty of Care
NEGLIGENCE
To hold a defendant liable for negligence, the plaintiff must establish the following four elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to conform to a specific standard of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s harm; and (4) the plaintiff sustained actual damages or loss.
DUTY (Part 1 of the Duty Analysis: Does the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care?)
The majority rule is that a duty of care is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs.
Cardozo Approach
Under Justice Cardozo’s majority opinion in Palsgraf, the defendant owes a duty to plaintiffs who are within the zone of foreseeable danger.
Andrews/Restatement Approach
Under Justice Andrew’s dissent in Palsgraf and the Restatement, if the defendant can foresee harm to anyone as a result of his negligence, then a duty is owed to every person harmed as a proximate cause of his breach. Under the Andrews/Restatement approach, the issue of whether the plaintiff was foreseeable is reserved for the analysis of proximate cause.
STANDARD OF CARE (Part 2 of the Duty Analysis: If so, what is the standard of care owed?)
Once we establish whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the next part of the duty analysis is to determine what standard of care the defendant owed to the plaintiff.
In most cases, the standard of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is that of a reasonably prudent person under like circumstances as measured by an objective standard (the reasonable person standard of care).
However, the standard of care owed may change when certain types of defendants are involved or a statute defines a specific standard of care as a matter of law (negligence per se).
Traditionally, the standard of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is subject to modification if the defendant is: a child, a professional, a physician, a common carrier or innkeeper, an automobile driver, a bailor or bailee, or a possessor or owner of land.
![How to Analyze Personal Jurisdiction on a Civil Procedure Essay [SCOTUS UPDATE: See Description]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OHNBLiemiLg/mqdefault.jpg)
🚨 SPECIAL OFFER: Want to crush law school finals, rack up scholarship $$$, pass the bar exam, and practice law like a BOSS? Take the LEAP. Get started today for free at: www.studicata.com/leap
I just watched this entire video, and I gotta say it was great!! I gained much more understanding of this case, which is what I am studying.
I loved the teaching skill of the speaker and appreciated the amount of positive energy put into the explanation (cuz it definitely needed it). Thanks so much...
Omg I learned more about this and it made much more sense in 11 minutes than it did my entire time in law school! You are a brilliant teacher!
These videos are at least 10 times better than my classes at the law school!
Thank you for your support!
Super helpful!
This dude saves me over and over. Easiest and clearest. Nothing irrelevant and exactly everything that is. Even throws in the buzzwords.
Thank you so much for posting these complimentary videos. I think I can speak for all 1Ls out there when I say that your videos are tremendously helpful.
Sure, happy to help!
The clearest explanation of Palsgraf! I got it before I study proximate cause. Thank you!
Watching from the Philippines and taking the Bar Exams.
Good luck!
From the bottom of my heart thank you❤️
Of course-happy to help!
thanks so much I think I'm ready for assignments now 😁
Awesome-happy to help!
Really interesting stuff! The majority view here, as I understand it, is linear to a detriment. This "Gordian knot" of duty v proximate cause seems solvable by the principle of "Do no harm." So, I liked your discussion of the dissent's principle argument about how it was more about the cause of harm, which therefore if it exists, leads in and of itself to a breach of duty! Please let me know if this doesn't make sense!
I read somewhere that the "fireworks" were really a pipebomb. The guy carrying it was some kind of engineer but they didnt want the newspapers to say a guy was boarding the train with a pipebomb.
I've not heard that but it's super interesting. Where did you read that? The bigger question is what exactly a "scale" is that fell on her.
@@lawtrough5048 law school profesor told my class that, it was in our torts book too. Dont remember the author.
I think the scale is a giant scale they weighed stuff on before putting it on trains. But that is completely my own thought. A scale idk
tricktaylor1983 I had the same thought but just can’t picture it haha
"Mistake" differs from "negligence" in that a mistake relates to unconscious error (such as a typographical error) vs. carelessness. I was against some "not so smart" attorneys that attempted to relieve their client from a contract that he entered into. They idiotically thwarted the lie that their client accepted the contract's disclosed Value and Consideration by "mistake", when explaining how the "mistake" occurred they were too dumb to realize they explained negligence in carefully reading the terms of the contract.
One thing missing- it is the RailLine duty to ask passengers if they have high risk baggage- not even necessary to prove all other points. Rail Line is completely negligent for not providing safety for anyone on their property.passenger or not.Non detailed people to even argue the case. Yes harm to lady and it is Rail Line's fault. They lacked due diligence to not ask passenger if they had at risk baggage. Case closed. Negligent due to lack of due diligence which is a lack of duty to not provide safety to all passengers or people on their property. Cookbook view does not work. Duty was owed without question. Safety not provided to persons on property. Fireworks have gun powder- do they allow guns on Rail line by passngers?
Could you do a video on joint tortfeasors if you haven’t already? I love your videos! Thank you!
God why don’t professors teach this way? So much easier to understand thank you
Sure-happy to help!
Why is it so much easier to understand v. a traditional lecture?
wicked video! everything is explained so well. thank you :)
Sure, happy to help!
Thank you for the good explanation
No problem, happy to help!
thank you so much! one thing i kept asking myself though, why wasnt this case brough against the individual who was carrying the explosives instead of the actual railway company?
Straight negligence of Long Island RR. We have a injured party we have a crime
What are the best law cases to watch to help you understand how the law works?
Wasn't a brief case, was a cylinder 15 inches long, 4 inches wide. Definitely looked like a pipe bomb or some sort of explosive. Or at least a picture roll, which would have been expensive (so they should have been more careful either way).
Citation needed
Thank you! This was very helpful
Awesome-happy to help!
gem. excellent
Thank you!
Thank you sir. This is very helpful.
Sure, happy to help!
Someone needs to create a movie about Palsgraf!
Do a video on writing petitions
The modded Ann's test in Cooper v Hobart (2001) SCC is the current test for duty
Cooper v Hobart is a case adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Canada. Is it a relevant citation in US courts?
Bill and Ted’s Tortious Adventure!
If there is no duty, there can be no chain of causation.
DUTY OF CARE OWED? SEE EXPLANATION AT 6:30
Great video.
Thanks!
Do you have any videos on analyzing intentional torts essays - no negligence aspects?
Yes-uploading them to the Torts playlist: ruclips.net/p/PL0JgU9zLKXAH5av-BoEAMGT23SlxYF-Be
Thank you so much
Sure-happy to help!
thank uu
No problem!
thanks!!!!!
You're welcome!
You are amazing! thank you for your videos!
Thank you-happy to help!
Do you have any logic games videos for lsat
how do i apply this to a negligence misstatement?
what is the name of the exact "proximate cause" in that situation? I'm fine with everything else
I’m an airline pilot. Why am I watching these
You’re an NTJ
How long until CA is ready? I'd like to buy your materials prior to feb exam but don't want to buy them now only to realize the same stuff + CA focus is up on the website
Thank you
Hi there! Unfortunately, the CA materials will not be ready for the February 2019 bar exam.
Are the CA materials for bar available now?
The employees should never have pushed a person on a moving train , PERIOD CASE CLOSED
Thank You !! :)
You're welcome!
I'm not even in law school and this makes sense
Sweet! Glad it's helpful for you.
Have anyone got legal English and common law book in pdf?
Starting a law course in England, will these case laws apply in England
No-our videos cover generally accepted principles of law in the United States.
There is a principal in law of tort which enables the plaintiff to succeed in his actions by simply showing to the court that he got harmed by a thing that was under the control of the defendant he does not need to prove negligence, what the name of this principal and its Latin name?
Help please
Res Ipsa Loquitor
So As someone not studying law to get a degree Or in law - My thoughts would be The railroad owed a duty of care to the man trying to get on the moving train and prevent him from doing so Instead they helped him. They work for the railroad there for as a member of company fall under the railroad company Now from that The man fell The suitcase blew up Unknown to the workers And a shockwave or item Hit a fixture on Railroad property And it fell injuring the women ........I will assmue this was a very old case Even a founding law case As to a todays measure of law (carrying fireworks on a train or aircraft has its own law) And duty of care vs a moving train) I wonder if back then if the man was part to blame in the awards As common sense of trying to board a moving train with 1 hand As today im sure he would be at some fault Along with bring fireworks onboard ...I'm building my own case on a stair case vs landlord Many building code faults Many times over looked (ignored) And from Negligence to Gross And Wanton Negligence Fun stuff..If i didn't hate paper work I be loving this ...
What types of compensation is available for breach of duty of care and loyalty owed from a condo corporation to member/ units owner? Can I request for punitive damages? My condo association collected insurance claims payment and failed to repair my units they kept over $16 thousands that was allocated to repair my damages this is a fraudulent conduct, evil, malice bad faith, fraud, theft , conversion conducts my question is beside my compensatory damages can I request for punitive damages?
Punitive damages may result from intentional torts, of which conversion is one. Call an actual lawyer though. You got a lot of issues to pick apart there.
Kudos to you for coming here to seek advice. Can't beat free legal advice from people studying the law closely atm
Loyalty means nothing unless its a specific clause in your contract that after some period of time or resource exchange youd b considered loyal. It should mean everything but property law doesnt really care about loyalty, unless you're trying to gain title through adverse possession.
Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. You gotta be able to proove malicious acts on behalf of defendant. Ie they must have knowingly wronged you in an attempt to further their own position. It helps to show that the D did it more than once. Punitive damages might masquerade as a punishment but its really the courts way of saying this is outrageous and we dont want to hear another caase like it so in turn as to deter this behavior we're making an example out of you. Its more of a filtering mechanism as far as the courts are concerned. Punitive damage awards are all over the map depending on D's status. If its walmart or the like youre gonna see hundreds of millions as they wouldnt be punished by just 6 figures and have millions of customers who they can also violate. Your condo association not as much. You also have a finite period of time to bring charges. Call lawyers. Someone will take your case for free unless you win.
res ipsa loquitur
Making judges dependant on his will alone ...
See, that's the problem with the whole case and it's ruling. The events you describe, and the events described by Cardovo's opinion, are false. The package was dragged from the point of its dropping, along the tracks by the train, and exploded 10 feet from the complaintant!!! It was the shock wave right next to them that knocked over the scales, not on the other side of the platform.
Hmmmm.... Amazing point of view.
Wait wtf were they doing getting on a moving train.
he said doody.. heheh
How does a guy this smart not know there are wheels at the bottom of a train? 😅
Lol 🤦♂️
haha duty