Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Torts 1L Mod 9-10
Torts 1L Mod 9-10 Rules statements and elements
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| two key forms of evidence that a plaintiff can use in attempting to establish negligence by the defendant | Direct, Circumstantial |
| Direct | Evidence that comes from personal knowledge or observation |
| Examples of Direct Evidence | i. Such as from an eyewitness or by videotape |
| Circumstantial | It is proof that requires the drawing of an inference from other facts to have probative value; It can be very powerful evidence. |
| Example of Circumstantial Evidence | Skid marks of tires |
| Where a plaintiff slips and falls on the defendant's property, the plaintiff must show | more than the fact that she fell and was injured to prove the defendant's breach. |
| Because negligence is the cause of action in a slip and fall, the plaintiff must show | a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. |
| In a slip and fall, most courts require the plaintiff to show | that the condition on which she slipped existed long enough so that the defendant should have discovered it and should have remedied it. |
| Res ipsa loquitur means | the thing speaks for itself |
| Res ipsa loquitur is only used when trying to prove | Only used in proving breach of duty cases. |
| The key difference between res ipsa loquitur and other circumstantial evidence | With circumstantial evidence, the jury needs to know of other forms of evidence in order to determine if D failed to use due care; with res ipsa loquitur, a jury can determine D acted unreasonably without other proof. |
| The heart of res ipsa loquitur | is that from the happening of the accident and the defendant's relationship to it, the plaintiff seeks to establish |
| traditional conditions required for the application of res ipsa loquitur | an accident that normally does not happen without negligence; exclusive control of the instrumentality by the defendant; and absence of voluntary action or contribution by the plaintiff. |
| In order for the plaintiff to have the benefit of res ipsa loquitur, she must | convince the jury that each of these factors more likely than not exists. |
| A powerful rationale for res ipsa loquitur has been | that it forces a defendant who has the most understanding of how the harm-causing event came about to come forward with that information. |
Created by:
Rochelle28nm
Popular Law sets