0:00:01.190,0:00:02.029
In this video,

0:00:02.240,0:00:04.038
we will introduce negligence.

0:00:05.849,0:00:07.920
We'll say Parry is crossing the street

0:00:08.130,0:00:09.000
and just then

0:00:09.289,0:00:13.600
Dudley comes riding by on his bicycle into the intersection too fast,

0:00:13.770,0:00:14.840
and there's an accident

0:00:15.000,0:00:16.158
and Parry gets hurt.

0:00:17.299,0:00:18.870
In everyday conversation,

0:00:19.079,0:00:21.229
we would say that Dudley was careless

0:00:21.229,0:00:23.909
and that his carelessness caused the accident.

0:00:25.579,0:00:27.280
But if the parties go to court,

0:00:27.569,0:00:30.239
we would say that this is a case about negligence.

0:00:30.530,0:00:33.560
The defendant is being sued for being negligent.

0:00:35.169,0:00:36.680
Negligence is another name

0:00:36.889,0:00:38.560
for an unintentional tort.

0:00:40.319,0:00:42.770
In law school you'll frequently hear people say

0:00:43.020,0:00:46.849
that a plaintiff must prove duty breach causation and damages

0:00:47.220,0:00:48.540
to win a negligence claim.

0:00:49.889,0:00:53.709
That's a short way of saying that the elements of negligence are

0:00:53.709,0:00:57.029
the defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff.

0:00:57.750,0:01:00.409
The defendant breached that duty of reasonable care

0:01:00.700,0:01:02.409
and as a result of the breach,

0:01:02.659,0:01:05.860
the defendant caused damages to the plaintiff.

0:01:07.019,0:01:09.870
So, using our bicycle accident as an example,

0:01:10.139,0:01:12.129
let's look at the elements of negligence,

0:01:12.230,0:01:12.690
duty,

0:01:12.879,0:01:13.139
breach,

0:01:13.180,0:01:13.779
causation,

0:01:13.790,0:01:14.709
and damages.

0:01:16.540,0:01:18.089
And we'll start with duty.

0:01:19.750,0:01:24.410
By duty we mean that the defendant had an obligation of reasonable care

0:01:24.739,0:01:27.550
to avoid causing this type of injury.

0:01:28.669,0:01:31.720
To determine whether that obligation exists,

0:01:32.010,0:01:36.599
courts will often ask whether the accident and the injury were foreseeable.

0:01:38.110,0:01:38.830
In this case,

0:01:39.150,0:01:42.190
everyone would probably agree riding a bicycle too

0:01:42.190,0:01:46.419
fast through a crosswalk can foreseeably cause an injury

0:01:46.709,0:01:48.830
to a pedestrian who is crossing the street.

0:01:50.839,0:01:51.480
For this reason,

0:01:51.529,0:01:54.029
the element of duty is probably satisfied.

0:01:54.319,0:01:58.959
Dudley had a duty of reasonable care to avoid this type of injury to Perry.

0:02:00.809,0:02:01.160
Next,

0:02:01.300,0:02:02.379
let's look at breach.

0:02:02.970,0:02:06.319
To determine whether Dudley breached his duty of reasonable care,

0:02:06.650,0:02:09.020
a court will probably compare Dudley

0:02:09.330,0:02:11.240
to the reasonable person.

0:02:12.619,0:02:14.720
If the defendant's level of care

0:02:15.050,0:02:19.360
went below the level of care that we would expect from a reasonable person,

0:02:19.649,0:02:23.160
we would say the defendant breached his duty of care.

0:02:24.619,0:02:26.759
So, using this chart as an example,

0:02:26.990,0:02:30.699
we would say that whenever the red line goes below the blue line,

0:02:31.270,0:02:33.580
the defendant breached his duty of care

0:02:34.029,0:02:35.779
because he showed less care

0:02:36.070,0:02:38.100
than the reasonable person would.

0:02:39.179,0:02:40.729
Turning back to our case,

0:02:41.020,0:02:43.660
people would probably say that a reasonable

0:02:43.660,0:02:46.449
person would not speed through the crosswalk,

0:02:46.699,0:02:47.570
and instead,

0:02:47.779,0:02:50.399
a cyclist would slow down or stop.

0:02:50.979,0:02:51.929
For this reason,

0:02:52.220,0:02:54.889
Dudley was not as careful as he should have been.

0:02:55.100,0:02:58.169
He was not as careful as the reasonable person,

0:02:58.580,0:02:59.580
and therefore

0:02:59.860,0:03:03.690
he probably breached his duty of reasonable care.

0:03:05.139,0:03:06.619
Next we'll look at causation.

0:03:07.750,0:03:08.820
At this point

0:03:08.990,0:03:10.139
in its analysis,

0:03:10.429,0:03:14.660
a court will ask whether the defendant's breach of his duty of care

0:03:15.139,0:03:15.800
caused

0:03:16.110,0:03:17.149
the plaintiff's injury.

0:03:18.990,0:03:19.789
In fact,

0:03:20.080,0:03:22.360
courts discuss two types of causation,

0:03:22.679,0:03:24.740
actual cause and proximate cause.

0:03:25.399,0:03:27.839
We're not going to discuss those in too much detail.

0:03:28.710,0:03:30.330
But actual cause means

0:03:30.539,0:03:32.970
if the defendant had done something differently,

0:03:33.259,0:03:35.289
would the accident still have occurred.

0:03:35.820,0:03:40.139
For proximate cause, we ask whether the defendant's actions were

0:03:40.139,0:03:43.490
close enough in time and space to the injury.

0:03:45.929,0:03:48.070
Based on the facts as we understand them,

0:03:48.279,0:03:50.929
it seems the defendant did cause the accident

0:03:51.270,0:03:54.350
because if he had stopped or ridden more slowly,

0:03:54.600,0:03:56.039
there would not have been an accident.

0:03:57.039,0:04:00.820
So, it looks like the third element of causation is also satisfied.

0:04:02.360,0:04:04.619
Now let's look at damages briefly.

0:04:04.880,0:04:06.860
It seems that there is no dispute

0:04:07.160,0:04:11.240
that the plaintiff was injured as a result of Dudley's actions.

0:04:11.679,0:04:12.240
Therefore,

0:04:12.440,0:04:16.709
we can say that all four elements of negligence have been satisfied.

0:04:17.320,0:04:21.200
We can predict that Perry will win in his lawsuit because

0:04:21.200,0:04:24.880
he should be able to prove all four elements of negligence.