Negligence Requirements and Potential Defenses to Myra’s Claim
Robyn Broadwater
Kaplan University
October 18, 2016
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 18, 2016
To: Candie Cardigan, CEO, CARDWARE Inc.
From: Robyn Broadwater
Re: Negligence Requirements and Potential Defenses to Myra’s Claim
______________________________________________________________________________
After being assigned to draft a memorandum for your review regarding Myra’s accident. Enclosed below are the four elements regarding the negligence claims, and the potential defenses we may have against Myra’s Claim? There are four elements to the negligence cause of action: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages or injury.
A defendant is owed a duty of care to all foreseeable persons who may foreseeably be injured by the defendant’s failure to act as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would under the circumstances. (Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, 1928). The reasonable person is an objective standard, and good faith or best efforts are irrelevant to the cause of action for negligence. Here, Myra may claim that there was a duty that was owed by CARDWARE to Myra when CARDWARE’s solicited Candie to walk on the Fashion City runway, and due to that solicitation and agreement, Candie tripped on the carpet, and falling onto Myra. By such solicitation, CARDWARE may be liable for the Myra’s injury as it was foreseeable to CARDWARE. Breach of duty occurs when the defendant deviates away from the standard duty of care based on the objective standard. There are two approaches under breach: (1) the reasonably prudent standard (traditional); or (2) cost-benefit analysis (United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 1947). Myra may claim that under the traditional approaches, CARDWARE has breached the duty by deviating away from the standard of duty of care, through solicitation and foreseeability of Myra’s injury. Also, under the cost-benefit analysis, Myra may claim that there was a high likelihood of her injury as wrinkle in the carpet may be probable for Candie to trip, and that she had severe injury from the broken nose, and CARDWARE did not do much to avoid the danger. There are two types of causation: (1) factual or “but-for” causation; and (2) proximate or legal causation. Plaintiff can prove the “but-for” causation test if the plaintiff’s injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s tortious act or omission. (Summer v. Tice, 1948). Here, Myra can claim that but for the contract and CARDWARE’s solicitation to Candie, Myra would not have been injured from Candie’s tripping. Myra may also claim that the solicitation and contract was the substantial factor to Myra’s injury. A defendant is liable for reasonably foreseeable consequences resulting from the defendant’s negligent conduct. The test here is not necessarily factual but whether the injury was foreseeable. In Palsgraf, Judge Cardozo claimed that so long as the plaintiff is a protected member of the class based …show more content…
The carpet is a foreseeable factor as the walkway can have these wrinkles. Furthermore, under Judge Andrew’s dissenting opinion, Myra can be part of the “any” consequences that naturally flow from defendant’s conduct. Thus, Myra may claim her proximate causation is satisfied. Plaintiff must prove actual damages for there to be negligence claim. Otherwise, there can be no negligence claim. Here, Myra suffered a broken nose and cut to her face. This may constitute as damage, and Myra may claim as
Robyn Broadwater
Kaplan University
October 18, 2016
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 18, 2016
To: Candie Cardigan, CEO, CARDWARE Inc.
From: Robyn Broadwater
Re: Negligence Requirements and Potential Defenses to Myra’s Claim
______________________________________________________________________________
After being assigned to draft a memorandum for your review regarding Myra’s accident. Enclosed below are the four elements regarding the negligence claims, and the potential defenses we may have against Myra’s Claim? There are four elements to the negligence cause of action: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages or injury.
A defendant is owed a duty of care to all foreseeable persons who may foreseeably be injured by the defendant’s failure to act as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would under the circumstances. (Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, 1928). The reasonable person is an objective standard, and good faith or best efforts are irrelevant to the cause of action for negligence. Here, Myra may claim that there was a duty that was owed by CARDWARE to Myra when CARDWARE’s solicited Candie to walk on the Fashion City runway, and due to that solicitation and agreement, Candie tripped on the carpet, and falling onto Myra. By such solicitation, CARDWARE may be liable for the Myra’s injury as it was foreseeable to CARDWARE. Breach of duty occurs when the defendant deviates away from the standard duty of care based on the objective standard. There are two approaches under breach: (1) the reasonably prudent standard (traditional); or (2) cost-benefit analysis (United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 1947). Myra may claim that under the traditional approaches, CARDWARE has breached the duty by deviating away from the standard of duty of care, through solicitation and foreseeability of Myra’s injury. Also, under the cost-benefit analysis, Myra may claim that there was a high likelihood of her injury as wrinkle in the carpet may be probable for Candie to trip, and that she had severe injury from the broken nose, and CARDWARE did not do much to avoid the danger. There are two types of causation: (1) factual or “but-for” causation; and (2) proximate or legal causation. Plaintiff can prove the “but-for” causation test if the plaintiff’s injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s tortious act or omission. (Summer v. Tice, 1948). Here, Myra can claim that but for the contract and CARDWARE’s solicitation to Candie, Myra would not have been injured from Candie’s tripping. Myra may also claim that the solicitation and contract was the substantial factor to Myra’s injury. A defendant is liable for reasonably foreseeable consequences resulting from the defendant’s negligent conduct. The test here is not necessarily factual but whether the injury was foreseeable. In Palsgraf, Judge Cardozo claimed that so long as the plaintiff is a protected member of the class based …show more content…
The carpet is a foreseeable factor as the walkway can have these wrinkles. Furthermore, under Judge Andrew’s dissenting opinion, Myra can be part of the “any” consequences that naturally flow from defendant’s conduct. Thus, Myra may claim her proximate causation is satisfied. Plaintiff must prove actual damages for there to be negligence claim. Otherwise, there can be no negligence claim. Here, Myra suffered a broken nose and cut to her face. This may constitute as damage, and Myra may claim as