In this episode, we delve into the intricate world of negligence, a cornerstone of tort law and a frequent topic in exams. Join us as we explore the essential elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. We'll break down complex legal tests, landmark cases like Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., and practical explanations to equip you with the knowledge needed to tackle challenging negligence questions. Whether you're preparing for a law exam or seeking a deeper understanding of tort law, this episode offers a comprehensive guide to mastering negligence. Tune in to gain insights that will help you confidently navigate the complexities of tort law.

The core purpose of damages in a personal injury case is to "make the plaintiff whole." This means financial compensation is provided to, as much as possible, put the injured victim back into the position they would have been in if they had not suffered the injury as a result of the defendant’s negligence or intentionally bad actions.

General damages compensate for abstract, non-financial losses like emotional and physical pain, while special damages repay concrete, financial losses. An example of general damages is pain and suffering, while an example of special damages is past and ongoing medical bills.

Punitive damages are awarded to punish defendants for wanton, reckless, or malicious acts, and to discourage similar behavior in the future. They are normally only allowed in negligence cases where the defendant's conduct was more than just ordinary negligence, such as drunk driving.

A duty of care is a legal obligation for a defendant to act with a particular standard of conduct to protect others from unreasonable risk of harm. This means all individuals have a general duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to others.

The "reasonable person standard" is an objective test that asks how a hypothetical, average person of reasonable caution and competence would have behaved under the same circumstances. Courts use this standard to assess whether the defendant's conduct fell below the expected level of care.

Actual cause (or cause-in-fact) uses the "but-for" test to determine if the injury would have occurred without the defendant's actions. Proximate cause (or legal cause) is concerned with foreseeability, limiting liability to harms that were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct.

If the Wright Brothers' invention of the airplane is considered an "actual cause" of 9/11 because the event wouldn't have happened "but for" their invention. However, it is not a "proximate cause" because the 9/11 tragedy was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of inventing the airplane nearly a century prior.

Res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself") is a doctrine that allows a jury to infer negligence without direct evidence. It applies when an injury typically doesn't occur without negligence, the instrumentality causing harm was under the defendant's control, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the harm.

Comparative negligence reduces a plaintiff's damage award based on their percentage of fault, allowing for some recovery even if partially at fault. Contributory negligence, in contrast, completely bars the plaintiff from recovering any damages if they are found to be even slightly negligent.

Two examples of a breach of duty in medical malpractice include a misdiagnosis of a serious condition, such as failing to diagnose cancer despite apparent symptoms, or a medication error, like prescribing an incorrect medication or dosage.