Organize before you write
Draw the chart first.
- List every plaintiff and every defendant separately
- Pair each plaintiff with every defendant who might owe them a duty
- Identify every potential claim within each pair before writing
- Address defenses (comparative fault, assumption of risk) for each surviving claim
Negligence's elements are tested from every direction
Duty, breach, causation (both actual and proximate), and damages each generate distinct exam traps: duty questions test foreseeability and special relationships, breach questions test the reasonable-person standard against unusual facts, and causation questions test intervening and superseding causes specifically because they're easy to skip.
The Torts outline and topic pages carry the element-by-element doctrine. Organizing the fact pattern first is what turns it into exam points.
How Cornell's legal encyclopedia states negligence
Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute defines negligence as the failure to behave with the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised under the same circumstances. It lists factors for judging lack of care: the foreseeable likelihood the conduct would result in harm, the foreseeable severity of the harm, and the burden of precautions needed to reduce the risk. It says five elements may typically be required: duty, breach, harm, proximate cause and cause-in-fact. Your course may group them differently.
It notes that omissions are negligent only when the person had a duty to act. It lists ways to find a duty, such as creating the risk, a voluntary undertaking, knowledge, or business and voluntary relationships like innkeeper and guest or doctor and patient. Organize before you write.
| Element | What has to be shown |
|---|---|
| Duty | The defendant owed the plaintiff an obligation to act with reasonable care |
| Breach | The defendant's conduct fell below the standard of a reasonable person in the same circumstances |
| Causation | The breach was both the actual cause (but-for) and the proximate cause (a foreseeable result) of the harm |
| Damages | The plaintiff suffered actual, legally recognized harm |
Breach, harm and causation in that source
Some courts use the Hand Formula to test breach. If the burden of precautions is less than the probability of loss multiplied by its severity, the defendant breached the duty. Harm typically must be bodily harm or harm to property. The source says harm that is solely economic usually will not satisfy this element, and some states recognize emotional distress. Emotional distress varies by state.
On proximate cause, the source says one way to assess it is foreseeability. Its example is rock thrown from a high-rise balcony that strikes a passerby. Plaintiff conduct and intervening factors can affect the analysis. It is a general summary, so your course's version controls. Use your course's version.
Common questions
What is negligence?+
The failure to behave with the level of care a reasonable person would have exercised under the same circumstances, according to Cornell's Legal Information Institute.
What elements does Cornell list for negligence?+
Five: a legal duty, breach of that duty, harm to the plaintiff, proximate cause and cause-in-fact, which courses often group as duty, breach, causation and damages.
What factors show a lack of reasonable care?+
The foreseeable likelihood of harm, the foreseeable severity of the harm, and the burden of precautions needed to eliminate or reduce the risk.
When is an omission negligent?+
Only when the person had a duty to act, for example a duty to help because of one's own previous conduct, according to Cornell's summary.
What is the Hand Formula?+
A breach test some courts use: if the burden of precautions is less than the probability of loss times its severity, the defendant breached the duty.
What kind of harm satisfies the harm element?+
Typically bodily harm or harm to property. Solely economic harm usually will not, though some states recognize emotional distress.
How is proximate cause assessed?+
One way is foreseeability of the defendant's actions resulting in harm, with plaintiff conduct and intervening factors also affecting the analysis.
What is the first step on a Torts exam?+
List every plaintiff-defendant pair and every potential claim between them before drafting analysis, so issues sitting in the fact pattern are not missed.
What to do next
- 1
List every plaintiff-defendant pair before writing a single line of analysis.
- 2
Address duty, breach, causation, and damages separately for every surviving claim.
- 3
Practice intervening and superseding cause fact patterns specifically — they're commonly skipped.
- 4
Open the full Torts outline for element-by-element rule statements.