The general rule is that a person has a duty to exercise reasonable care regarding foreseeable risks of harm that may rise from the person’s conduct. However, there are certain times when a court will decide to limit a person’s legal duty. In determining whether or not to limit a duty, the courts balance a number of factors, including the foreseeability of harm; the closeness of the connection between the conduct that caused the injury and the injury suffered; the moral blame attached to the conduct; the social policy of preventing future harm; and the broader consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach.

If it can be established than a person had a legal duty, then the next question becomes whether that duty was breached. A breach occurs when an individual’s conducted created a foreseeable chance of harm or an unreasonable risk of harm. The standard for determining if a breach occurred is commonly referred to as objective standard of reasonable care. This means that we all owe a standard of care to act as a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances in order not to cause harm by our actions. If we had a duty to behave in a certain way, and failed to behave as a reasonable person would under the similar circumstances, then a breach occurred. Although customs in a community or culture do not define the reasonable person standard, courts commonly consider them in determining whether a person acted reasonably in a situation.

The next element is causation. Causation actually has two parts, actual causation and proximate causation. Actual causation can be determined through the “but for” test. But for that person running the red light, the collision would not have occurred. Actual causation is also commonly referred to as cause-in-fact causation. If actual cause can be established, then the next step is determining whether the negligent conduct was the proximate cause of the injury. The easiest way to understand proximate cause is to think of it in terms of foreseeability. Was the harm resulting from an action reasonably able to be predicted? For example, it is foreseeable that swinging a golf club at someone’s head could cause serious injury but what if you swing a golf club indoors, hitting a shelf, and causing a heavy object to fall on someone’s head causing serious injury? Your attorney would need to establish that the injured suffered was proximately caused by the initial act of swinging the golf club.

The final element of negligence is damages. In order to recover in a personal injury claim, you must suffer legally recognized harm. General damages are composed of pain and suffering and these are intended to cover for injuries which cannot be given an exact dollar amount. Compensatory damages usually include medical expenses and lost wages. The purpose in awarding damages is to put the injured person in the position he was in prior to the injury.

To see how the elements or negligence are important in a personal injury claim, see Was that person “negligent” and do I have a personal injury case?