Torts

Reasonable person standard. Duty we all owe is that of a reasonable and prudent person.

Knew or should have known of a condition that gives rise to a foreseeable risk of harm and in light of such knowledge acted anyways.

Cause in fact first and then can consider proximate cause.

Cause and effect relationship between the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s harm

• But for analysis.
• Two or more causes contributing to a single harm the but for test doesn’t work and so you substitute in the substantial factor test.

Don’t get here unless you establish the cause in fact prong first

As a matter of public, common sense, and what is fair/just our defendant should be liable for the harm caused.

• Foreseeability
• Whether or not the consequences are foreseeable from this type of conduct

• Direct/indirect
• Looking back, did your actions lead to this harm? Without any intervening causes?