torts: RPP, duty, breach, help

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
37duncan
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:33 pm

torts: RPP, duty, breach, help

Postby 37duncan » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:46 pm

I am confused on how the reasonably prudent person standard & B<PL fits into negligence.

My impression is that RPP & B<PL both establish breach but keep getting indications that they also are involved with establishing duty. My professor is super unclear and supplements are not helping. Prof follows a Prosser approach more or less.

anyone willing to clarify for me?
Thanks

sorry for multiple post- internet acting weird/don't know what I am doing
please delete duplicate posts if possible.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11742
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: torts: RPP, duty, breach, help

Postby ilovesf » Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:14 pm

They go into the breach category. Did D act with the care that a reasonably prudent person would? If not -> breach of duty (if such a duty of care exists). B<PL is a way to calculate how a reasonably prudent person would act. This is at least how my prof taught it to us. A reasonably prudent person would have taken necessary precautions/not done whatever caused the negligence if B<PL.

Duty is more established by the foreseeability that P will be affected by your action and by a special relationship between P and D.

lawnerd1
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: torts: RPP, duty, breach, help

Postby lawnerd1 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:52 pm

ilovesf wrote:They go into the breach category. Did D act with the care that a reasonably prudent person would? If not -> breach of duty (if such a duty of care exists). B<PL is a way to calculate how a reasonably prudent person would act. This is at least how my prof taught it to us. A reasonably prudent person would have taken necessary precautions/not done whatever caused the negligence if B<PL.

Duty is more established by the foreseeability that P will be affected by your action and by a special relationship between P and D.


I'd put them both under the duty category. According to the Hand formula, the likelihood of harm and the degree of harm need to be balanced against the burden of avoiding the harm. It's an economic approach to establishing if there was a duty of care/harm avoidance needed to avoid particular injuries. It's really just more of a guideline. Once the factors are weighed, if the burden is less than likelihood and the degree of harm, if the burden has not been undertaken, there is a potential breach of duty. Think of it like putting a lock on a gate to keep your dog from getting out. Would a cheap lock have prevented the dog from getting out and killing the neighbors cat? Dogs naturally chase cats so there is a higher than normal likelihood of it happening. And so on..

The RPP is a duty owed to the others in society (Was it Andrews who said that?). Would a reasonably prudent person act the same way under the same circumstances? If not there has been a breach. It's a mutual thing amongst people. You expect that others act reasonably prudent towards you and they expect the same. It's your duty to act reasonable and prudent towards others.

RelativeEase
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: torts: RPP, duty, breach, help

Postby RelativeEase » Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:02 pm

They really speak to duty and breach. That being said if you have to categorize it, put it in duty. They both establish what the level of care should be, ie what the duty is. Breach is simply that they didnt meet that standard.

B>PL = no duty
B<PL = duty

realize also, that the burden includes any loss of utility realized from decreasing the risk.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: torts: RPP, duty, breach, help

Postby 03121202698008 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:40 pm

betasteve wrote:BPL is an alternative calculus to determine whether there is a breach of a duty.

RelativeEase wrote:They really speak to duty and breach. That being said if you have to categorize it, put it in duty. They both establish what the level of care should be, ie what the duty is. Breach is simply that they didnt meet that standard.

B>PL = no duty
B<PL = duty


realize also, that the burden includes any loss of utility realized from decreasing the risk.

Bolded is wrong - If B<PL, then breach of duty, otherwise may or may not be breach of duty.


Correct. The Hand formula is a calculus to determine breach. I've read about a thousand pieces dealing with this for my Note. Palsgraf is duty. There is some disagreement as to whether B should encompass costs to society as a whole or just the cost to the actor. Essentially, we assume a reasonably prudent person would act in an economically proper way. So, if you don't = breach.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests