ExamFinch.com My Study

Study guide

14.2 The Negligence Framework: Duty of Care, Standards & Breach

Practice this exam

Uniform Bar Examination UBE

Track your progress as you read

Finished sections get a check mark.

1 Chapter 1: UBE Architecture & Bar Study Strategy

1.1 UBE Architecture, Scoring Mechanics & Jurisdiction Cutoffs 1.2 NextGen Bar Exam Transition & Comparative Architecture 1.3 400–600 Hour Bar Prep Architecture & Active Recall Strategies

2 Chapter 2: Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction & Pretrial

2.1 Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Supplemental Jurisdiction & Removal 2.2 Personal Jurisdiction, Service of Process & Venue 2.3 The Erie Doctrine, Pleadings & Pre-Answer Motions

3 Chapter 3: Civil Procedure: Discovery, Trial & Preclusion

3.1 Joinder of Claims, Parties, Interpleader & Class Actions 3.2 Scope of Discovery, Work-Product Doctrine & Summary Judgment 3.3 Trial Motions, Claim Preclusion, Issue Preclusion & Appeals

4 Chapter 4: Constitutional Law: Federal Powers & Separation of Powers

4.1 Article III Judicial Power, Justiciability & Federal Jurisdiction 4.2 Article I Legislative Powers, Article II Executive Authority & Separation of Powers 4.3 Federalism, Preemption, Dormant Commerce Clause & Intergovernmental Immunities

5 Chapter 5: Constitutional Law: Individual Rights & Liberties

5.1 State Action Doctrine, Procedural Due Process & Substantive Due Process 5.2 Equal Protection Tiers of Scrutiny & Suspect Classifications 5.3 First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Press & Religion

6 Chapter 6: Contracts & Sales: Formation, Defenses & Terms

6.1 Contract Formation, Offer, Acceptance & UCC Battle of the Forms 6.2 Consideration, Contract Modifications & Formation Defenses 6.3 Parol Evidence Rule, Interpretation, Warranties & Risk of Loss

7 Chapter 7: Contracts & Sales: Performance, Breach & Remedies

7.1 Conditions, Performance Standards, Material Breach & UCC Perfect Tender 7.2 Anticipatory Repudiation, Insecurity & Discharge of Duties 7.3 Contract Remedies, Damages Measurement & Third-Party Rights

8 Chapter 8: Criminal Law: Principles, Homicide & Crimes

8.1 Principles of Criminal Liability, Mens Rea & Inchoate Crimes 8.2 Common Law & Statutory Homicide and Crimes Against the Person 8.3 Property Crimes, Theft Offenses & Crimes Against Habitation

9 Chapter 9: Criminal Law Defenses & Criminal Procedure

9.1 Substantive Criminal Defenses, Justification & Excuse 9.2 Fourth Amendment: Search, Seizure & Exclusionary Rule 9.3 Fifth Amendment Miranda, Sixth Amendment Counsel & Double Jeopardy

10 Chapter 10: Evidence: Relevance, Character & Witnesses

10.1 Logical Relevance, FRE 403 Exclusion & Policy Exclusions 10.2 Character Evidence, Specific Bad Acts (MIMIC) & Habit 10.3 Witness Competence, Impeachment Methods & Expert Opinion

11 Chapter 11: Evidence: Hearsay, Exceptions & Writings

11.1 The Hearsay Rule, Non-Hearsay Purposes & FRE 801(d) Exclusions 11.2 Hearsay Exceptions (FRE 803 & 804) & Sixth Amendment Confrontation 11.3 Evidentiary Privileges, Authentication & Best Evidence Rule

12 Chapter 12: Real Property: Estates, Concurrent Ownership & Leases

12.1 Present Freehold Estates, Future Interests & Rule Against Perpetuities 12.2 Concurrent Ownership: Tenancies & Co-Tenant Rights and Duties 12.3 Landlord-Tenant Relationships, Leaseholds & Transfer Rights

13 Chapter 13: Real Property: Conveyances, Titles & Land Rights

13.1 Real Estate Contracts, Conveyancing & Mortgage Financing 13.2 Deeds, Covenants of Title, Recording Acts & Title Assurance 13.3 Easements, Real Covenants, Equitable Servitudes & Land Use

14 Chapter 14: Torts: Intentional Torts, Negligence & Defenses

14.1 Intentional Torts to Persons and Property & Affirmative Defenses 14.2 The Negligence Framework: Duty of Care, Standards & Breach 14.3 Negligence: Causation, Damages, NIED & Comparative Fault

15 Chapter 15: Torts: Strict Liability, Products Liability & Defamation

15.1 Strict Liability: Animals, Abnormally Dangerous Activities & Defenses 15.2 Products Liability, Vicarious Liability & Joint Tortfeasors 15.3 Defamation, Privacy Torts & Business Torts

16 Chapter 16: MEE Subjects: Business Associations & Conflict of Laws

16.1 Agency Relationships, General Partnerships, LPs & LLCs 16.2 Corporate Formation, Governance, Fiduciary Duties & Shareholder Rights 16.3 Conflict of Laws: Choice of Law Approaches & Recognition of Judgments

17 Chapter 17: MEE Trusts, Estates, Family Law, Secured Transactions & MPT Strategy

17.1 Family Law: Premarital Agreements, Divorce, Property Division & Child Custody 17.2 Decedents' Estates, Wills Formalities & Trusts Administration 17.3 Secured Transactions: UCC Article 9 Attachment, Perfection & Priorities 17.4 Multistate Performance Test (MPT) Closed-Universe Analysis & MEE Essay IRAC Mastery

14.2 The Negligence Framework: Duty of Care, Standards & Breach

Key Takeaways Explain This Topic AI

A prima facie negligence claim requires proof of five distinct elements: Duty, Breach, Actual Cause (Cause-in-Fact), Proximate Cause (Legal Cause), and Legally Cognizable Damages.

Under Palsgraf, the general duty of care is owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs located within the zone of danger created by the defendant's conduct (Cardozo majority); there is no general common law duty to rescue strangers absent a special relationship, defendant-created peril, or voluntary undertaking.

Standards of care vary by actor: the objective Reasonably Prudent Person (RPP) incorporates physical limitations but ignores mental illness; children are held to a subjective age/experience standard unless engaging in adult/motorized activities; professionals must conform to the standard of average practitioners in good standing.

Land possessor duties follow traditional entrant categories: Undiscovered Trespasser (no duty); Discovered/Anticipated Trespasser (duty to warn of known, concealed, highly dangerous artificial conditions); Child Trespassers (Attractive Nuisance doctrine); Licensees (duty to warn of known concealed natural/artificial dangers); Invitees (affirmative duty to inspect, discover, and remedy/warn).

Breach can be established through Learned Hand economic balancing (B < P * L), Negligence Per Se (statutory violation where plaintiff is in protected class and suffers protected harm without excuse), Custom (evidentiary but not dispositive), or Res Ipsa Loquitur (permissible inference surviving directed verdict).

Last updated: August 2026

14.2 The Negligence Framework: Duty of Care, Standards & Breach

Negligence is the most heavily tested subject area on the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE). Establishing a prima facie case of negligence requires the plaintiff to prove five essential elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

Duty: A legally recognized obligation requiring the defendant to conform to a standard of conduct for the protection of others;

Breach: Failure by the defendant to conform to the required standard of care;

Actual Cause (Cause-in-Fact): A causal link demonstrating that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's breach;

Proximate Cause (Legal Cause): Proof that the injury was a foreseeable consequence within the scope of the risk created by the defendant;

Damages: Actual, legally cognizable physical injury or property damage. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

  • | THE FIVE ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE |
  • | |
  • | [ DUTY ] --> Standard of care owed to foreseeable plaintiffs |
  • | | |
  • | [ BREACH ] --> Failure to meet standard (Hand Formula / Per Se / RIL)|
  • | | |
  • | [ ACTUAL CAUSE] --> "But-for" / Substantial factor test |
  • | | |
  • | [ PROXIMATE ] --> Foreseeability / Scope of risk / Intervening forces |
  • | | |
  • | [ DAMAGES ] --> Actual physical or property harm (NO pure economic) |
  • +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  • 1. The Scope of Duty & The Foreseeable Plaintiff ( Palsgraf )
  • The Palsgraf Conflict

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928), the New York Court of Appeals established the foundational framework for determining to whom a duty of care is owed:

Cardozo Majority (Zone of Danger Rule - Majority Rule): Duty is relational . A defendant owes a duty of care only to foreseeable plaintiffs who are situated within the foreseeable zone of danger created by the defendant's conduct. If a reasonable person would not have foreseen danger to the plaintiff, no duty is owed.

Andrews Dissent (Universal Duty Rule): Every person owes a general duty of care to society as a whole to refrain from acts that unreasonably threaten the safety of others. If a defendant breaches that duty, liability to any injured party is governed by proximate cause, not duty.

Affirmative Duties to Act and Rescue

As a foundational common law principle, there is no general duty to rescue, assist, or protect strangers in peril , even if aid could be rendered at zero risk or cost. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

  • | EXCEPTIONS: AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES TO RESCUE |
  • | |
  • | 1. SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS: |
  • | - Common carrier-passenger, innkeeper-guest, business-customer, |
  • | employer-employee, school-student, jailer-prisoner. |
  • | |
  • | 2. CREATION OF PERIL: |
  • | - If defendant's conduct (even if entirely non-negligent) causes the |
  • | plaintiff's peril, defendant has an affirmative duty to assist. |
  • | |
  • | 3. VOLUNTARY UNDERTAKING: |
  • | - One who voluntarily begins a rescue must exercise reasonable care and|
  • | cannot abandon the rescue if leaving the victim in a worse position. |
  • | |
  • | 4. STATUTORY DUTIES: |
  • | - Specific statutory enactments (e.g., hit-and-run reporting statutes).|
  • +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  • 2. Specialized Standards of Care
  • 1. The Reasonably Prudent Person (RPP)

The baseline standard of care is objective: that of a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances .

Physical Disabilities: The standard incorporates physical limitations . A blind person is held to the standard of a reasonably prudent blind person.

Mental Deficiencies & Low Intelligence: The standard does NOT adjust for mental illness, intellectual limitations, or voluntary intoxication . An individual suffering from cognitive impairment is held to the objective standard of a person of normal intelligence and prudence.

Superior Skills / Knowledge: If an actor possesses superior specialized knowledge or skill (e.g., a race car driver or structural engineer), the actor is held to a standard that incorporates that superior knowledge.

2. Children

Standard: A child is held to the standard of a child of like age, intelligence, education, and experience (a hybrid subjective-objective test).

The Adult Activity Exception: If a child engages in an inherently dangerous adult activity (e.g., operating an automobile, tractor, motorboat, or airplane), the child is held to the full adult objective standard of care .

3. Professionals (Malpractice)

Standard: A professional (doctor, lawyer, accountant, architect) must exercise the knowledge, skill, and competence of an average member of that profession in good standing .

Specialists: Board-certified specialists are held to a national standard of care .

Informed Consent (Medical): A physician has a duty to disclose material risks of a proposed medical treatment—risks that a reasonable patient would consider significant in deciding whether to undergo the procedure.

3. Special Duties of Land Possessors

Under the traditional common law framework, the duty owed by a possessor of land depends strictly on the legal classification of the entrant: +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

  • | COMMON LAW LAND POSSESSOR DUTIES MATRIX |
  • | |
  • | ENTRANT STATUS DEFINITION / EXAMPLES DUTY OWED |
  • | ----------------- ----------------------------- ---------------------- |
  • | Undiscovered Enters without permission; ZERO DUTY. |
  • | Trespasser possessor unaware. (No willful/wanton harm)|
  • | |
  • | Discovered / Possessor knows or should know Duty to WARN of or make |
  • | Anticipated of trespassers (beaten paths). SAFE known, highly |
  • | Trespasser dangerous, concealed |
  • | ARTIFICIAL conditions. |
  • | |
  • | Child Trespasser Attractive Nuisance Doctrine Reasonable care to |
  • | (Restatement 2d § 339). protect children from |
  • | artificial hazards. |
  • | |
  • | Licensee Enters with permission for own Duty to WARN of or make |
  • | purpose (social guests). SAFE known concealed |
  • | dangers (natural & art).|
  • | (No duty to inspect). |
  • | |
  • | Invitee Business customer or public Duty to INSPECT, discover|
  • | invitee on open land. latent dangers, and |
  • | make safe or warn. |
  • +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  • The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine (Child Trespassers)

A land possessor is liable for physical harm to trespassing children caused by an artificial condition if five elements are satisfied ( Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 ):

The possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass on the place where the condition exists;

The condition is one the possessor knows or should know involves an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm ;

The children, because of their youth, do not discover or realize the risk involved;

The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared to the risk to children; and

The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or protect the children.

Note

Modern Trend (Minority/California Rule): A growing minority of jurisdictions have abolished the rigid status distinctions between licensees and invitees, imposing a single unified standard of reasonable care under all circumstances to all lawful visitors ( Rowland v. Christian ).

  • 4. Proving Breach of Duty +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  • | METHODS OF PROVING BREACH |
  • | |
  • | 1. LEARNED HAND FORMULA: Breach exists if B < P * L |
  • | (Burden of precaution is less than Probability of harm * Gravity) |
  • | |
  • | 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE: Statutory violation establishes conclusive breach |
  • | - Plaintiff in protected class + Harm of type statute prevents |
  • | |
  • | 3. CUSTOM IN INDUSTRY: Evidence of standard, but NOT conclusive |
  • | (Entire industry may be negligent - The T.J. Hooper) |
  • | |
  • | 4. RES IPSA LOQUITUR: Permissible inference of negligence |
  • | - Ordinarily requires negligence + Exclusive control + No P fault |
  • +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  • 1. Cost-Benefit Analysis: The Learned Hand Formula

In United States v. Carroll Towing Co. (1947), Judge Learned Hand articulated an economic calculus for determining breach: Breach occurs when B < P × L \text{Breach occurs when } B < P \times L Breach occurs when B < P × L

  • B B B (Burden): The financial, operational, or practical cost of taking adequate precautions;
  • P P P (Probability): The foreseeable likelihood that the harm will occur;

L L L (Loss / Gravity): The foreseeable severity or magnitude of the resulting injury.

2. Statutory Standards & Negligence Per Se

Where a criminal safety statute or regulatory enactment prescribes a specific standard of conduct, a violation conclusively establishes duty and breach as a matter of law if the plaintiff satisfies two prongs:

Class of Persons: The plaintiff belongs to the specific class of persons the statute was enacted to protect; and

Class of Risk: The injury suffered was the specific type of harm the statute was designed to prevent.

Excuses for Statutory Violation: Negligence per se does not apply if:

Compliance would cause greater danger than violation (e.g., walking on the wrong side of the road to avoid an oncoming vehicle);

The defendant suffered sudden physical incapacity beyond control;

The defendant made reasonable, diligent efforts to comply but was unable.

3. Custom in the Industry

Evidence of conformity with industry custom is admissible to show reasonable care, and evidence of deviation is admissible to show breach.

Non-Conclusive: Custom is not conclusive . Under The T.J. Hooper (1932), an entire industry may be lagging behind reasonable safety practices; adherence to an unsafe custom does not insulate a defendant from liability.

4. Res Ipsa Loquitur ("The Thing Speaks for Itself")

Res ipsa loquitur allows a plaintiff who lacks direct evidence of the defendant's specific negligent act to create a permissible inference of breach by establishing three requirements:

  • The accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence ;
  • The instrumentality causing the harm was within the exclusive control of the defendant; and

The accident was not due to any voluntary action or contribution by the plaintiff.

Procedural Effect of Res Ipsa:

Res ipsa does NOT shift the ultimate burden of persuasion or entitle the plaintiff to a directed verdict.

It simply creates an inference of negligence that defeats the defendant's motion for a directed verdict / Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) , allowing the case to reach the jury.