WEBVTT

00:00:01.190 --> 00:00:02.029
In this video,

00:00:02.240 --> 00:00:04.038
we will introduce negligence.

00:00:05.849 --> 00:00:07.920
We'll say Parry is crossing the street

00:00:08.130 --> 00:00:09.000
and just then

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

00:00:13.770 --> 00:00:14.840
and there's an accident

00:00:15.000 --> 00:00:16.158
and Parry gets hurt.

00:00:17.299 --> 00:00:18.870
In everyday conversation,

00:00:19.079 --> 00:00:21.229
we would say that Dudley was careless

00:00:21.229 --> 00:00:23.909
and that his carelessness caused the accident.

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

00:00:27.569 --> 00:00:30.239
we would say that this is a case about negligence.

00:00:30.530 --> 00:00:33.560
The defendant is being sued for being negligent.

00:00:35.169 --> 00:00:36.680
Negligence is another name

00:00:36.889 --> 00:00:38.560
for an unintentional tort.

00:00:40.319 --> 00:00:42.770
In law school you'll frequently hear people say

00:00:43.020 --> 00:00:46.849
that a plaintiff must prove duty breach causation and damages

00:00:47.220 --> 00:00:48.540
to win a negligence claim.

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

00:00:53.709 --> 00:00:57.029
the defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff.

00:00:57.750 --> 00:01:00.409
The defendant breached that duty of reasonable care

00:01:00.700 --> 00:01:02.409
and as a result of the breach,

00:01:02.659 --> 00:01:05.860
the defendant caused damages to the plaintiff.

00:01:07.019 --> 00:01:09.870
So, using our bicycle accident as an example,

00:01:10.139 --> 00:01:12.129
let's look at the elements of negligence,

00:01:12.230 --> 00:01:12.690
duty,

00:01:12.879 --> 00:01:13.139
breach,

00:01:13.180 --> 00:01:13.779
causation,

00:01:13.790 --> 00:01:14.709
and damages.

00:01:16.540 --> 00:01:18.089
And we'll start with duty.

00:01:19.750 --> 00:01:24.410
By duty we mean that the defendant had an obligation of reasonable care

00:01:24.739 --> 00:01:27.550
to avoid causing this type of injury.

00:01:28.669 --> 00:01:31.720
To determine whether that obligation exists,

00:01:32.010 --> 00:01:36.599
courts will often ask whether the accident and the injury were foreseeable.

00:01:38.110 --> 00:01:38.830
In this case,

00:01:39.150 --> 00:01:42.190
everyone would probably agree riding a bicycle too

00:01:42.190 --> 00:01:46.419
fast through a crosswalk can foreseeably cause an injury

00:01:46.709 --> 00:01:48.830
to a pedestrian who is crossing the street.

00:01:50.839 --> 00:01:51.480
For this reason,

00:01:51.529 --> 00:01:54.029
the element of duty is probably satisfied.

00:01:54.319 --> 00:01:58.959
Dudley had a duty of reasonable care to avoid this type of injury to Perry.

00:02:00.809 --> 00:02:01.160
Next,

00:02:01.300 --> 00:02:02.379
let's look at breach.

00:02:02.970 --> 00:02:06.319
To determine whether Dudley breached his duty of reasonable care,

00:02:06.650 --> 00:02:09.020
a court will probably compare Dudley

00:02:09.330 --> 00:02:11.240
to the reasonable person.

00:02:12.619 --> 00:02:14.720
If the defendant's level of care

00:02:15.050 --> 00:02:19.360
went below the level of care that we would expect from a reasonable person,

00:02:19.649 --> 00:02:23.160
we would say the defendant breached his duty of care.

00:02:24.619 --> 00:02:26.759
So, using this chart as an example,

00:02:26.990 --> 00:02:30.699
we would say that whenever the red line goes below the blue line,

00:02:31.270 --> 00:02:33.580
the defendant breached his duty of care

00:02:34.029 --> 00:02:35.779
because he showed less care

00:02:36.070 --> 00:02:38.100
than the reasonable person would.

00:02:39.179 --> 00:02:40.729
Turning back to our case,

00:02:41.020 --> 00:02:43.660
people would probably say that a reasonable

00:02:43.660 --> 00:02:46.449
person would not speed through the crosswalk,

00:02:46.699 --> 00:02:47.570
and instead,

00:02:47.779 --> 00:02:50.399
a cyclist would slow down or stop.

00:02:50.979 --> 00:02:51.929
For this reason,

00:02:52.220 --> 00:02:54.889
Dudley was not as careful as he should have been.

00:02:55.100 --> 00:02:58.169
He was not as careful as the reasonable person,

00:02:58.580 --> 00:02:59.580
and therefore

00:02:59.860 --> 00:03:03.690
he probably breached his duty of reasonable care.

00:03:05.139 --> 00:03:06.619
Next we'll look at causation.

00:03:07.750 --> 00:03:08.820
At this point

00:03:08.990 --> 00:03:10.139
in its analysis,

00:03:10.429 --> 00:03:14.660
a court will ask whether the defendant's breach of his duty of care

00:03:15.139 --> 00:03:15.800
caused

00:03:16.110 --> 00:03:17.149
the plaintiff's injury.

00:03:18.990 --> 00:03:19.789
In fact,

00:03:20.080 --> 00:03:22.360
courts discuss two types of causation,

00:03:22.679 --> 00:03:24.740
actual cause and proximate cause.

00:03:25.399 --> 00:03:27.839
We're not going to discuss those in too much detail.

00:03:28.710 --> 00:03:30.330
But actual cause means

00:03:30.539 --> 00:03:32.970
if the defendant had done something differently,

00:03:33.259 --> 00:03:35.289
would the accident still have occurred.

00:03:35.820 --> 00:03:40.139
For proximate cause, we ask whether the defendant's actions were

00:03:40.139 --> 00:03:43.490
close enough in time and space to the injury.

00:03:45.929 --> 00:03:48.070
Based on the facts as we understand them,

00:03:48.279 --> 00:03:50.929
it seems the defendant did cause the accident

00:03:51.270 --> 00:03:54.350
because if he had stopped or ridden more slowly,

00:03:54.600 --> 00:03:56.039
there would not have been an accident.

00:03:57.039 --> 00:04:00.820
So, it looks like the third element of causation is also satisfied.

00:04:02.360 --> 00:04:04.619
Now let's look at damages briefly.

00:04:04.880 --> 00:04:06.860
It seems that there is no dispute

00:04:07.160 --> 00:04:11.240
that the plaintiff was injured as a result of Dudley's actions.

00:04:11.679 --> 00:04:12.240
Therefore,

00:04:12.440 --> 00:04:16.709
we can say that all four elements of negligence have been satisfied.

00:04:17.320 --> 00:04:21.200
We can predict that Perry will win in his lawsuit because

00:04:21.200 --> 00:04:24.880
he should be able to prove all four elements of negligence.