|
|
What
is Negligence?
People
sometimes use the word "negligence" to describe a person who
was at fault for hurting another. For example, we might say that a doctor
was negligent, or that a driver was negligent when he was involved in
a car accident.
But negligence has a very specific legal meaning which will be explained
here.
Four Tests for Negligence.
Negligence actually has four specific tests: Duty, Breach, Damages and
Causation. When we say a person is negligent, that means all four tests
have been passed. Let's see an example that illustrates this.
Jack gets into his car after drinking a bottle of whiskey, starts the
car and drives down the road. Along the way, he loses control of the vehicle
and rear-ends a car driven by Jill, totaling her car and seriously injuring
her.
Jack is negligent. He passes all four tests.
(1) DUTY
Jack had a DUTY to drive safely on the road.
(2) BREACH
Jack BREACHED his duty by drinking and driving.
(3) DAMAGES
Jill and her car were DAMAGED
(4) CAUSATION
The DAMAGE was CAUSED by Jack's BREACH of his DUTY to drive
safely.
That's how
negligence works. All the tests must be met in order for a person to be
found legally negligent.
But suppose not all the tests have been passed? Could there still be negligence?
Looking at our example again, let's change the facts a bit. Suppose Jack
gets into his car after drinking a bottle of whiskey, starts the car and
drives down the road. Along the way, Jill runs a stoplight, hitting Jack's
car. Jill's car is badly damaged and she is injured, but somehow Jack
is miraculously unharmed. Jill sues Jack for her personal injuries and
damage to her car, arguing that Jack was negligent because he was driving
drunk.
Is Jack negligent? Let's look at the four tests again:
(1) DUTY
Jack had a DUTY to drive safely on the road.
(2) BREACH
Jack BREACHED his duty by drinking and driving.
(3) DAMAGES
Jill and her car were DAMAGED
(4) CAUSATION
The DAMAGE was NOT CAUSED by Jack's BREACH of
his DUTY to drive safely - it was caused by Jill running the stoplight
In this second example, only three of the four tests are
clearly met. The problem that Jill has in winning her case is that SHE
RAN THE STOPLIGHT and hit Jack. The damage caused to Jill was NOT caused
by Jack's breach of his duty to drive safely. In legal terms, "causation"
is missing in this second example.
Of course, a skilled attorney could always argue that Jack was negligent
per se, and that, had he not been driving drunk, he might have
been in the best position to avoid the accident. In Pennsylvania there
would also be a discussion of comparative negligence - that is, which
party was more at fault, and by what percentage. However, the point of
this last example is to demonstrate the basic idea that all four tests
must be passed to meet the legal definition of negligence.
|
|
