![[Contents]](../icons/rule_toc.gif){kind=icon}
The plaintiff __________ [also] seeks to recover damages based upon a claim of negligence.
The essential elements of such a claim are:
1. The defendant was negligent;
2. Defendant's negligence was a cause of injury, damage, loss or harm to plaintiff. | TOP |
Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.
It is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care.
Ordinary or reasonable care is that care which persons of ordinary prudence would use | TOP |
One test that is helpful in determining whether or not a person was negligent is to ask and answer the question whether or not, if a person of ordinary prudence had been in the same situation and possessed of the same knowledge, [he] [or] [she] would have foreseen or anticipated that someone might have been injured by or as a result of [his] [or] [her] action or inaction. If the answer to that question is "yes", and if the action or inaction reasonably could have been avoided, then not to avoid it would be negligence. | TOP |
The amount of caution required of a person in the exercise of ordinary care depends upon the conditions that are apparent or that should be apparent to a reasonably prudent person under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. | TOP |
When the circumstances are such that the possibility of harm caused by the criminal conduct of a third person is, or in the exercise of due care should be, reasonably foreseeable, it is negligence to fail to use reasonable care to prevent such criminal act from causing [injury] [damage]. | TOP |
Every person who is exercising ordinary care, has a right to assume that every other person will perform [his] [her] duty [and obey the law], and in the absence of reasonable cause for thinking otherwise, it is not negligence for such a person to fail to anticipate an accident which can occur only as a result of a violation of [law] [or] [duty] by another person. | TOP |
A person who is exercising ordinary care has a right to assume that other persons are ordinarily intelligent and possessed of normal sight and hearing, in the absence of reasonable cause for thinking otherwise. | TOP |
Evidence as to whether a person conformed or did not conform to a custom that had grown up in a given locality or business is relevant and ought to be considered, but is not necessarily controlling on the issue whether such person was negligent. That issue must be determined by the standard of care that I have stated to you. | TOP |
A minor is not held to the same standard of care as an adult. A minor is required to exercise the degree of care which ordinarily is exercised by minors of like maturity, intelligence and capacity under similar circumstances. You must determine whether the conduct of [plaintiff] [defendant] _____________________ was such as might reasonably have been expected of a minor of like maturity, intelligence and capacity, acting under similar circumstances. | TOP |
The amount of caution required of a person whose physical faculties are impaired is the care which a person of ordinary prudence with similarly impaired faculties would use under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. | TOP |
Ordinarily it is necessary to exercise greater caution for the protection and safety of a young child than for an adult person who possesses normal physical and mental faculties. One dealing with children must anticipate their ordinary behavior. The fact that children usually do not exercise the same degree of prudence for their own safety as adults, or that they often are thoughtless and impulsive, imposes a duty to exercise a proportional vigilance and caution on those dealing with children, and from whose conduct injury to a child might result. | TOP |
When a person's lawful employment requires that [he] [she] work in a dangerous location or a place that involves unusual possibilities of injury, or requires that in the line of [his] [her] duty [he] [she] take risks which ordinarily a reasonably prudent person would avoid, the necessities of such a situation, insofar as they limit the caution that [he] [she] can take for [his] [her] own safety, lessen the amount of caution required of [him] [her] by law in the exercise of ordinary care. | TOP |
Because of the great danger involved in the ________________________, a person of ordinary prudence will exercise extreme caution when engaged in such an activity.| TOP |
The exercise of ordinary care by those charged with the maintenance of wires and other facilities for transmitting electricity requires that efficient insulation be used and maintained at all places where there is a probability of injury to persons or property from contact with transmission lines and facilities if not so insulated.
In installing, maintaining and supervising electric transmission lines and facilities, caution commensurate with the existing danger is required.| TOP |
If you find that a party to this action violated _______________________, the [statute] [ordinance] [regulation] just read to you [and that such violation was a cause of injury to another or to [himself]] [herself]], you will find that such violation was negligence [unless such party proves by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] [she] did what might reasonably be expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law. In order to sustain such burden of proof, such party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] [she] was faced with circumstances which prevented compliance or justified noncompliance with the [statute] [ordinance] [regulation]].
[Furthermore, any such violation on the part of a minor would not be negligence if such minor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] [she] exercised the degree of care ordinarily exercised by persons of [his] [her] maturity, intelligence, and capacity under similar circumstances.]| TOP |
Contributory negligence is negligence on the part of a plaintiff which, combining with the negligence of a defendant, contributes as a cause in bringing about the injury.
Contributory negligence, if any, on the part of the plaintiff does not bar a recovery by the plaintiff against the defendant but the total amount of damages to which the plaintiff would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the plaintiff. | TOP |
Whether it is negligence for one to proceed into a dangerous situation of which one had previous knowledge is a question of fact. If you find that plaintiff voluntarily proceeded into a dangerous situation of which plaintiff had previous knowledge, but that plaintiff momentarily forgot the danger, such forgetfulness is not in itself contributory negligence unless under all the circumstances it shows an absence of ordinary care not to have kept the danger in mind. | TOP |
Contributory negligence, if any, on the part of the plaintiff does not reduce any recovery by the plaintiff against the defendant for an injury caused by misconduct of the defendant, if you find that the defendant intended to inflict harm upon the plaintiff. | TOP |
Contributory negligence is negligence on the part of a decedent which, combining with the negligence of a defendant, contributes as a cause in bringing about death.
Contributory negligence, if any, on the part of the decedent does not bar a recovery by the [heirs] [executor] [administrator] against the defendant but the total amount of damages to which the [heirs] [executor] [administrator] would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the decedent. | TOP |
This lawsuit was brought by the plaintiff __________, a minor, to recover damages for injuries.
Contributory negligence, if any, on the part of the minor does not bar a recovery against the defendant but the total amount of damages to which the minor would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the minor.
[The negligence, if any, of the parents, or either of them, does not bar or reduce recovery of damages for injuries to the minor.] | TOP |
This lawsuit was brought by the plaintiff _________________________, a minor, to recover damages for injuries.
[A minor under the age of five years is incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law.]
[The negligence, if any, of the parents, or either of them, does not reduce the recoverable damages for injuries to the minor.] | TOP |
This lawsuit involves two separate claims; a claim by __________ (minor) for damages for injuries, and the other, a claim by the parent[s] for medical expenses incurred [and for loss of earnings of the minor during minority].
A minor under the age of five years is incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law; therefore, you must not consider that defense as to plaintiff __________ (minor). Moreover, the minor's right of recovery would not be affected by any finding of negligence on the part of the parents, or either of them.
Contributory negligence, if any, on the part of either parent does not bar recovery of the parents' claims against the defendant arising out of injuries to the minor but the total amount of damages to which the parents would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to them. | TOP |
With respect to the minor plaintiff, this lawsuit involves two separate claims; a claim by ________________ (minor) for damages for injuries, and the other, a claim by the parent[s] for medical expenses incurred [and for loss of earnings of the minor during minority].
A minor under the age of five years is incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law; therefore, you must not consider that defense as to plaintiff ________________ (minor). Moreover, such minor's right of recovery would not be affected by any finding of negligence on the part of the parents, or either of them.
Contributory negligence, if any, on the part of either parent does not bar recovery of the parents' claims against the defendant arising out of injuries to the minor but the total amount of damages to which the parents would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to them. | TOP |
One who is simply a passenger in a motor vehicle and has no right to the control or management of such vehicle nevertheless has the duty to exercise the same ordinary care for [his] [or] [her] own safety and protection as a person of ordinary prudence would take under the same circumstances. You must determine from all of the evidence what conduct might reasonably have been expected of a person of ordinary prudence in the same circumstances.
In the absence of some fact brought to the passenger's attention which would cause a person of ordinary prudence to act otherwise, such passenger is not charged with the responsibility [of observing the condition of the traffic on the highway] [of ascertaining whether or not a train is approaching] [of warning the driver of the presence of railroad tracks or of an approaching train]. However, a passenger who is aware that the driver is not looking for [trains] [other vehicular traffic] or is driving the vehicle in a negligent manner or is violating the law, or that [an engine, train or car] [another motor vehicle] is approaching [on the tracks] [the intersection] and is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard to those in the passenger's vehicle, the passenger has the duty of doing whatever a person of ordinary prudence in the same situation would do to inform or warn the driver in an effort to prevent an accident.
Contributory negligence, if any, by the passenger does not bar recovery against the defendant but the total amount of damages to which the passenger would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the passenger. | TOP |
The law defines cause in its own particular way. A cause of injury, damage, loss or harm is something that is a substantial factor in bringing about an injury, damage, loss or harm. | TOP |
There may be more than one cause of an injury. When [[negligent] [or] [wrongful] conduct of two or more persons] [or [[negligent] [or] [wrongful] conduct and a defective product]] contribute[s] concurrently as [a] cause[s] of an injury, [the conduct of] each is a cause of the injury regardless of the extent to which each contributes to the injury. A cause is concurrent if it was operative at the moment of injury and acted with another cause to produce the injury. [It is no defense that the [negligent] [wrongful] conduct of a person not joined as a party was also a cause of the injury.] | TOP |
If you find that defendant [__________ (first actor)] was negligent and that such negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about an injury to the plaintiff but that the immediate cause of the injury was the negligent conduct of [a third person] [defendant __________ (second actor)], the defendant [__________ (first actor)] is not relieved of liability for such injury if:
1. At the time of such conduct defendant [__________ (first actor)] realized or reasonably should have realized that [a third person] [defendant [__________ (second actor)] might so act; [or the risk of harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable]; or
2. A reasonable person knowing the situation existing at the time of the conduct of the [third person] [defendant __________ (second actor)] would not have regarded it as highly extra-ordinary that the [third person] [defendant __________ (second actor)] had so acted; or
3. The conduct of the [third person] [defendant
__________ (second actor)] was not extraordinarily negligent and was a normal consequence of the situation created by defendant [__________ (first actor)].
[Extraordinary means unforeseeable, unpredictable, and statistically extremely improbable.] | TOP |
If the plaintiff establishes by a preponderance of the evidence all of the facts necessary to prove (1) that each of the defendants was negligent, and (2) that the negligent act of one of the defendants was a cause of plaintiff's injury, and (3) that the injury was such that it could only result from the negligent act of one of the defendants, and (4) that from the circumstances of the accident the plaintiff cannot reasonably establish which defendant's negligence was a cause of the injury, then you will find that each defendant is liable for plaintiff's injury.
However, under such circumstances, a defendant is not liable if [he] [she] establishes by a preponderance of the evidence all of the facts necessary to prove that [his] [her] negligence was not a cause of plaintiff's injury. | TOP |