1
00:00:01,190 --> 00:00:02,029
In this video,

2
00:00:02,240 --> 00:00:04,038
we will introduce negligence.

3
00:00:05,849 --> 00:00:07,920
We'll say Parry is crossing the street

4
00:00:08,130 --> 00:00:09,000
and just then

5
00:00:09,289 --> 00:00:13,600
Dudley comes riding by on his bicycle into the intersection too fast,

6
00:00:13,770 --> 00:00:14,840
and there's an accident

7
00:00:15,000 --> 00:00:16,158
and Parry gets hurt.

8
00:00:17,299 --> 00:00:18,870
In everyday conversation,

9
00:00:19,079 --> 00:00:21,229
we would say that Dudley was careless

10
00:00:21,229 --> 00:00:23,909
and that his carelessness caused the accident.

11
00:00:25,579 --> 00:00:27,280
But if the parties go to court,

12
00:00:27,569 --> 00:00:30,239
we would say that this is a case about negligence.

13
00:00:30,530 --> 00:00:33,560
The defendant is being sued for being negligent.

14
00:00:35,169 --> 00:00:36,680
Negligence is another name

15
00:00:36,889 --> 00:00:38,560
for an unintentional tort.

16
00:00:40,319 --> 00:00:42,770
In law school you'll frequently hear people say

17
00:00:43,020 --> 00:00:46,849
that a plaintiff must prove duty breach causation and damages

18
00:00:47,220 --> 00:00:48,540
to win a negligence claim.

19
00:00:49,889 --> 00:00:53,709
That's a short way of saying that the elements of negligence are

20
00:00:53,709 --> 00:00:57,029
the defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff.

21
00:00:57,750 --> 00:01:00,409
The defendant breached that duty of reasonable care

22
00:01:00,700 --> 00:01:02,409
and as a result of the breach,

23
00:01:02,659 --> 00:01:05,860
the defendant caused damages to the plaintiff.

24
00:01:07,019 --> 00:01:09,870
So, using our bicycle accident as an example,

25
00:01:10,139 --> 00:01:12,129
let's look at the elements of negligence,

26
00:01:12,230 --> 00:01:12,690
duty,

27
00:01:12,879 --> 00:01:13,139
breach,

28
00:01:13,180 --> 00:01:13,779
causation,

29
00:01:13,790 --> 00:01:14,709
and damages.

30
00:01:16,540 --> 00:01:18,089
And we'll start with duty.

31
00:01:19,750 --> 00:01:24,410
By duty we mean that the defendant had an obligation of reasonable care

32
00:01:24,739 --> 00:01:27,550
to avoid causing this type of injury.

33
00:01:28,669 --> 00:01:31,720
To determine whether that obligation exists,

34
00:01:32,010 --> 00:01:36,599
courts will often ask whether the accident and the injury were foreseeable.

35
00:01:38,110 --> 00:01:38,830
In this case,

36
00:01:39,150 --> 00:01:42,190
everyone would probably agree riding a bicycle too

37
00:01:42,190 --> 00:01:46,419
fast through a crosswalk can foreseeably cause an injury

38
00:01:46,709 --> 00:01:48,830
to a pedestrian who is crossing the street.

39
00:01:50,839 --> 00:01:51,480
For this reason,

40
00:01:51,529 --> 00:01:54,029
the element of duty is probably satisfied.

41
00:01:54,319 --> 00:01:58,959
Dudley had a duty of reasonable care to avoid this type of injury to Perry.

42
00:02:00,809 --> 00:02:01,160
Next,

43
00:02:01,300 --> 00:02:02,379
let's look at breach.

44
00:02:02,970 --> 00:02:06,319
To determine whether Dudley breached his duty of reasonable care,

45
00:02:06,650 --> 00:02:09,020
a court will probably compare Dudley

46
00:02:09,330 --> 00:02:11,240
to the reasonable person.

47
00:02:12,619 --> 00:02:14,720
If the defendant's level of care

48
00:02:15,050 --> 00:02:19,360
went below the level of care that we would expect from a reasonable person,

49
00:02:19,649 --> 00:02:23,160
we would say the defendant breached his duty of care.

50
00:02:24,619 --> 00:02:26,759
So, using this chart as an example,

51
00:02:26,990 --> 00:02:30,699
we would say that whenever the red line goes below the blue line,

52
00:02:31,270 --> 00:02:33,580
the defendant breached his duty of care

53
00:02:34,029 --> 00:02:35,779
because he showed less care

54
00:02:36,070 --> 00:02:38,100
than the reasonable person would.

55
00:02:39,179 --> 00:02:40,729
Turning back to our case,

56
00:02:41,020 --> 00:02:43,660
people would probably say that a reasonable

57
00:02:43,660 --> 00:02:46,449
person would not speed through the crosswalk,

58
00:02:46,699 --> 00:02:47,570
and instead,

59
00:02:47,779 --> 00:02:50,399
a cyclist would slow down or stop.

60
00:02:50,979 --> 00:02:51,929
For this reason,

61
00:02:52,220 --> 00:02:54,889
Dudley was not as careful as he should have been.

62
00:02:55,100 --> 00:02:58,169
He was not as careful as the reasonable person,

63
00:02:58,580 --> 00:02:59,580
and therefore

64
00:02:59,860 --> 00:03:03,690
he probably breached his duty of reasonable care.

65
00:03:05,139 --> 00:03:06,619
Next we'll look at causation.

66
00:03:07,750 --> 00:03:08,820
At this point

67
00:03:08,990 --> 00:03:10,139
in its analysis,

68
00:03:10,429 --> 00:03:14,660
a court will ask whether the defendant's breach of his duty of care

69
00:03:15,139 --> 00:03:15,800
caused

70
00:03:16,110 --> 00:03:17,149
the plaintiff's injury.

71
00:03:18,990 --> 00:03:19,789
In fact,

72
00:03:20,080 --> 00:03:22,360
courts discuss two types of causation,

73
00:03:22,679 --> 00:03:24,740
actual cause and proximate cause.

74
00:03:25,399 --> 00:03:27,839
We're not going to discuss those in too much detail.

75
00:03:28,710 --> 00:03:30,330
But actual cause means

76
00:03:30,539 --> 00:03:32,970
if the defendant had done something differently,

77
00:03:33,259 --> 00:03:35,289
would the accident still have occurred.

78
00:03:35,820 --> 00:03:40,139
For proximate cause, we ask whether the defendant's actions were

79
00:03:40,139 --> 00:03:43,490
close enough in time and space to the injury.

80
00:03:45,929 --> 00:03:48,070
Based on the facts as we understand them,

81
00:03:48,279 --> 00:03:50,929
it seems the defendant did cause the accident

82
00:03:51,270 --> 00:03:54,350
because if he had stopped or ridden more slowly,

83
00:03:54,600 --> 00:03:56,039
there would not have been an accident.

84
00:03:57,039 --> 00:04:00,820
So, it looks like the third element of causation is also satisfied.

85
00:04:02,360 --> 00:04:04,619
Now let's look at damages briefly.

86
00:04:04,880 --> 00:04:06,860
It seems that there is no dispute

87
00:04:07,160 --> 00:04:11,240
that the plaintiff was injured as a result of Dudley's actions.

88
00:04:11,679 --> 00:04:12,240
Therefore,

89
00:04:12,440 --> 00:04:16,709
we can say that all four elements of negligence have been satisfied.

90
00:04:17,320 --> 00:04:21,200
We can predict that Perry will win in his lawsuit because

91
00:04:21,200 --> 00:04:24,880
he should be able to prove all four elements of negligence.