Negligence

What is negligence?

Negligence is a failure to exercise the degree of care a reasonably careful person would exercise under similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another person.

It is the foundational legal theory underlying the large majority of personal injury claims, from car accidents to premises liability to many medical malpractice cases.

Establishing this specific claim requires proving four distinct elements, each of which must independently be satisfied for the claim to actually succeed.

Understanding these elements helps explain why some cases with clearly careless seeming conduct nonetheless fail, if one of these specific elements cannot actually be established.

What are the four required elements?

Each element addresses a genuinely distinct question, and all four generally must be established together.

• A duty of care the defendant owed to the plaintiff
• Breach of that duty through conduct falling below the applicable standard of care
• Causation connecting the specific breach to the actual injury
• Actual, compensable damages resulting from that injury

How does duty actually get established in a specific case?

Generally through the relationship between the parties and the foreseeability of harm, since the law recognizes that certain relationships, such as driver to other road users, inherently carry a duty of reasonable care.

Some relationships carry a heightened duty beyond ordinary reasonable care, including the duty owed by a common carrier to its passengers.

Whether a duty exists at all is sometimes a genuinely contested legal question, particularly in novel factual situations without clear, established precedent addressing the specific relationship involved.

Why does the breach element sometimes require expert testimony?

Because for ordinary situations, jurors can generally assess reasonable conduct based on their own common experience, without needing specialized expert assistance.

For professional negligence, including medical malpractice, expert testimony is generally required to establish what a competent professional would have done under the specific circumstances presented.

This distinction matters considerably to properly building a case, since the specific evidence needed to establish breach differs meaningfully between an ordinary and a professional negligence claim.

Common questions

Can careless seeming conduct still fail to support a viable negligence claim?

Yes, if one of the four required elements cannot actually be established, such as where no legally recognized duty existed under the specific circumstances presented.

Do I always need expert testimony to prove this type of claim?

Not for ordinary situations within common understanding, though professional negligence claims, including medical malpractice, generally do require expert testimony to establish the applicable standard.

What is the difference between this claim and strict liability?

This claim requires proving unreasonable conduct fell below the applicable standard of care. Strict liability imposes responsibility without requiring proof of fault at all.