Busy. Please wait.

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 

Username is available taken
show password


Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.
We do not share your email address with others. It is only used to allow you to reset your password. For details read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.

Remove Ads
Don't know
remaining cards
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
restart all cards

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

Torts 1L Mod 9-10

Torts 1L Mod 9-10 Rules statements and elements

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