Dont get too far ahead because you wont remember when it comes down to the class.

If you fall behind cut your losses. Its better to skip a day than be behind. Reading after class is not
valuable.
If youre not prepared just tell the professor. Its better than them calling on you and looking retarded.
If the professor ever breaks down a rule into steps, its really important.
Nuggets are pearls of wisdom from your professor. For example you write two wills and who gets your
property.
Make a study group with your professor
Issue
Rule you have to argue
Torts
Policy will explain the black letter law
Civil means not criminal. It tends to be private (by the victim). The victim not the state determines if the
action is brought.
Deter people from taking excessive risks.
Where do the obligations come from? The source of the agreement is external. Society says that you
have certain duties. The other thing society does is to say okay you can go out into society and do risky
activities, but you have to take due care of others. This is not a duty that comes from an agreement this
just is there. We are all obligated to respect the lives of others and take due care. If not, the system will
hit you with a financial cost.
Intentional tort battery, assault, trespass. Someone has does something to invade the interest of
another. There is certainty that a harmful bodily contact will occur.
Accidental tort
Corrective justice compensating for being a wrong being shift from the plaintiff to the defendant. You
cannot impose liability on someone unless you can prove the DEF is the source of the law.
If the plaintiff cant prove it he cant get compensated.
Deterrence when you breach a duty the defendant is responsible. This will make everyone fear of
doing the same wrong. Each case is an example to everyone else. This is to impose conduct we want
future defendants to avoid. This helps regulate risk.
Because torts are a regulation we need to determine how much risk we want people to take and how
much compensation we want them to have. This means we have to determine how much entitlement
each person should have. The ort law at its core is what is your entitlement to your life.

Plaintiff has to be prove you were careless in your care.

NEGLIGENCE: PRIMA FACIE CASE
What are the things the plaintiff ahs to plea and prove and provide evidence of to allow him to get
compensation from the defendant. To allow him to go to a jury and convince them to agree with him
and offer compensation.
The defendant doesnt have tos ay anything other than he didnt plea his case. A def will ask to dismiss
because of a bad complaint (maybe a missing piece of dont plea everything he needed to do).

Is there enough evidence that the def has to pay. As long as the evidence would allow the jury to decide
whether the plaintiff has to win or lose. Jury decide fact, court decide law.
Whenever you get a fact pattern, go through it in a boring way. Dont jump into who wins or not. Be
linear and ask yourself did the def breach his duty? Did he breach it to the def. did the breach of care
cause the plaintiff harm and did the plaintiff suffer the type of harm that we compensate (emotional
distress, personal injury, property damage).
Walking through the Prima Facie Case:
Def is dumb as a post. He is below average in intelligence. Builds a hayrick and it busts into falmes. The
edge of his property is near his neighbors farm and burns down the neighbors building. Neighbor sues
for negligence. Our PL has to show that the Def breached his duty of care towards his neighbor. HE HAS
TO SHOW NEGLIGENCE.
How to show this? When he went to argue this in trial he argued that a reasonable person would not
have built it the way that he did. You cannot appeal and say I built it the way the reasonable prudent
person would have built it. The jury would find that when a reasonable person builds it, it doesnt burn
down. The jury will find him liability. The correct test for liability should be he built it in good faith and
best ability. The question for court is the reasonable care or are you subjectively at fault. If the court
thinks any def is entitled if hes subjectively at fault, he gets a new trial and gets the jury to decide. The
jury might say he is entitled if he acted in good faith. Your only issues was he using care of a reasonable
person.
We dont ask if you acted in good faith, they ask if you acted reasonable. Its about under what
circumstance you should have to pay for something.
For children, the court would ask if he acted reasonable for a child in similar age. This is when they are
doing activities that are considered adult activities or activities children normal dont do, such as driving
a car.
Burden of proof beyond the reasonable doubt.
How much care is reasonable care? What factors do we bear in mind? What can the plaintiff argue?
Question of reasonable care. Did he act greater than probable harm, small loss, or expected harm?

Probable harm = P>0

Size of loss = L>0
Expected harm = PxL
Probability times the loss is the expected loss.
So it would be .50(1,000,000) = 500,000
Cost of care is less than or equal to probability times harm
The law doesnt require you to act to save someone. Unless you accidentally do something to put them
in harms way, even then the law doesnt require you to risk your life.
If at the the time the def thought there was no risk in acting, its okay for him to do it.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR (dont use unless it applies)
There are situations in the way the accident occurs is circumstantial evidence that its someone is
negligent. The type of injury wouldnt happen unless someone is negligent.
Didnt take notes on hypo #2
Proximate cause.
How do we say enough. For example telling a doctor they were at or not at fault.
Not only does the D have to be proven as negligent, but negligent to the defendant and proximate to
the P and if proven hes liable to all damages, even if the damages are unforeseeable.