To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove duty, breach, causation (both actual and proximate), and damages. These four elements demonstrate that the defendant had an obligation, failed to meet that obligation, and that failure directly and foreseeably caused the plaintiff to suffer actual harm.

The Cardozo view of duty, primarily from Palsgraf, holds that a defendant only owes a duty to those persons within the zone of foreseeable harm resulting from their conduct. In contrast, the Andrews view argues that a duty is owed to everyone if the defendant's conduct creates a general risk of harm, regardless of direct foreseeability.

A professional, such as a doctor, is held to the standard of care of a reasonably prudent member of their profession under similar circumstances. This objective standard considers the knowledge, skill, and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by professionals in that particular field or specialty.

Res ipsa loquitur, meaning "the thing speaks for itself," allows a jury to infer negligence when the event is of a type that ordinarily does not occur without negligence, the instrumentality causing the harm was in the defendant's exclusive control, and the injury was not due to the plaintiff's own action. An example is a surgical instrument being left inside a patient after an operation.

The "but for" test is used to establish actual cause, requiring the plaintiff to show that but for the defendant's negligent act, the harm would not have occurred. The "substantial factor" test is applied in cases with multiple sufficient causes, where the defendant's conduct is considered a cause-in-fact if it was a significant contributor to the resulting harm.

Negligence per se is a doctrine where violation of a statute that was designed to protect a particular class of persons from a specific type of harm is considered conclusive evidence of breach of duty. For this doctrine to apply, the plaintiff must be within the protected class, and the harm suffered must be of the type the statute intended to prevent.

Generally, there is no legal duty to affirmatively act or rescue someone in peril, even if it can be done safely. However, an exception exists when there is a special relationship between the parties, such as a parent and child or a common carrier and its passengers, which creates a duty to take reasonable steps to aid the other.

A landowner owes a licensee a duty to warn them of known dangers on the property that are not obvious. However, the landowner has no duty to inspect for unknown dangers or to make the premises safe for the licensee.

Under pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the percentage of their own fault, regardless of how high that percentage is. In contrast, modified comparative negligence allows a plaintiff to recover only if their fault is below a certain threshold (usually 50% or less), otherwise their recovery is barred.

The three main categories of activities or things for which strict liability is typically imposed are abnormally dangerous activities, wild animals (and sometimes domestic animals with known dangerous propensities), and defective products (under the theory of strict products liability).