LAW OF TORTS- NEGLIGENCE (USA)

Negligence highlights the failure to perform the basic of care which the performer as a reasonable man
should have performed in all the situations. In general, there is a legal duty to consider when it can be
foreseen that failure to do so can cause harm. Examples of negligent torts are car accidents, slip and fall
accidents, and most medical malpractice cases. The United States generally recognizes four elements to
a negligence action: duty, breach, proximate causation and injury. A plaintiff who makes a negligence
claim must prove all four elements of negligence in order to win his or her case

The elements of negligent tort are:

 that there must be a breach of duty to a known standard of care;

 that the breach of that duty was the actual cause and the proximate cause of the harm to the
plaintiff; and

 that the plaintiff was harmed, to which the law provides a remedy.

REMEDIES AVAILABLE:

 Legal Remedies for Torts: Also known as “damages”, these are monetary payments made
by the defendant for the purpose of compensating the victim for their injuries, losses, and
pain/suffering.
 Restitutionary Remedies: These are also meant to restore the plaintiff to a position of
“wholeness”, as close as possible to their state before the tort occurred.
 Equitable Remedies: These are available where monetary damages will not adequately
restore the victim to wholeness. These can include Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary
or Permanent Injunction

CASE: Baltimore and Ohio R.R. v. Goodman (U.S.A)

Brief Fact Summary. Goodman (Plaintiff) was struck and killed by Baltimore and Ohio R.R.’s
(Defendant’s) train when Plaintiff crossed a train track. Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s own
negligence caused his death. Plaintiff had been driving at ten or twelve miles per hour, but slowed
down to five or six miles per hour as he neared the crossing. The railroad line was straight, it was
daylight, and Plaintiff was familiar with the crossing.

Issue. Not knowing whether or not a train was coming, did Plaintiff assume the risk when he crossed
the train track without first exiting his vehicle and checking?

Judgement. In this case, the court found that Plaintiff assumed the risk of being hit by a train when he
failed to stop and get out of his vehicle to check for an approaching train. The court held that the jury
should not decide the standard of care in this case because there is a clear duty to get out of the
vehicle and check for trains.