Top Law Schools

I saw a thread on this a few weeks back, but couldn't find it. In a nutshell, I'm really struggling with organizing negligence answers because there is just so much information about each of the elements in a negligence cause of action. My professor does have exams posted, but he does not have model answers.

Is it best to keep a structure with the four traditional elements of negligence, in that order? Do I establish what duty applies [is part of arguing both sides trying to argue for different standards of care?], then discuss how that duty was breached, then discuss whatever the hell causation is, and then damages (please tell me this is usually obvious).

Sorry if this is an obvious question, but there seems to be 25 standards of care, a million different types to breach those standards, and I don't even know what the hell is going on with causation right now.

Any tips for approaching a negligence issue is appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

AVBucks4239 wrote:I saw a thread on this a few weeks back, but couldn't find it. In a nutshell, I'm really struggling with organizing negligence answers because there is just so much information about each of the elements in a negligence cause of action. My professor does have exams posted, but he does not have model answers.

Is it best to keep a structure with the four traditional elements of negligence, in that order? Do I establish what duty applies, then discuss how that duty was breached, then discuss whatever the hell causation is, and then damages (please tell me this is usually obvious).

Sorry if this is an obvious question, but there seems to be 25 standards of care, a million different types to breach those standards, and I don't even know what the hell is going on with causation right now.

Any tips for approaching a negligence issue is appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

I think this is a good approach. Then again, in full disclosure, Torts was my lowest grade ever.

Did you do LEEWS? If not do a search of torrents for top law schools rap songs.

or read Getting to Maybe.

Generally your prof wants you to use IRAC, but certain teachers expect different papers. Some are issue spotters others want you to dwell on negligence.

This is how my prof. likes her answers. Very formula like.

Pete v Dan: Negligene
Pete would argue that Dan is liable for negligene. In order to prevail on a negligence cause of action Pete would need to establish duty, breach, causation, and damages.
In order to establish duty Pete would argue that the (reasonable person, professional, child, statutory standard of care...whatever) applies...analysis

In order to establish breach Pete would need to show that Dan's actions fell below the standard of care. When Dan....

Pete would next need to establish causation. Causation is established by showing that the negligent conduct was both the cause in fact and the proximate cause of Pete's injury. Cause in fact is satisfied by showing that the conduct was the but for cause or a substantial factor in the injuty. In this case but for....Therefore cause in fact is satisfied (or not). Proximate cause is satisfied by showing that the negligent conduct was a direct cause of or that the injury was foreseable. When Dan...analysis...Dan might argue that the...was a superseding cause...analysis. Proximate cause is (not) satisfied.

Damages...

Affirmative Defenses...

Pete has established a prima facie case for negligence. Dan has (or has no) affirmative defenses therefore Dan would likely (not likely) be found liable for negligence.

AlexanderSupertramp wrote:This is how my prof. likes her answers. Very formula like.

Pete v Dan: Negligene
Pete would argue that Dan is liable for negligene. In order to prevail on a negligence cause of action Pete would need to establish duty, breach, causation, and damages.
In order to establish duty Pete would argue that the (reasonable person, professional, child, statutory standard of care...whatever) applies...analysis

In order to establish breach Pete would need to show that Dan's actions fell below the standard of care. When Dan....

Pete would next need to establish causation. Causation is established by showing that the negligent conduct was both the cause in fact and the proximate cause of Pete's injury. Cause in fact is satisfied by showing that the conduct was the but for cause or a substantial factor in the injuty. In this case but for....Therefore cause in fact is satisfied (or not). Proximate cause is satisfied by showing that the negligent conduct was a direct cause of or that the injury was foreseable. When Dan...analysis...Dan might argue that the...was a superseding cause...analysis. Proximate cause is (not) satisfied.

Damages...

Affirmative Defenses...

Pete has established a prima facie case for negligence. Dan has (or has no) affirmative defenses therefore Dan would likely (not likely) be found liable for negligence.

This is good stuff. Thanks.