Negligence in tort law and legal liability

Negligence

Generally, In order to sustain a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed him a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty of care by his negligent commission of an action (or by his negligent omission of action), and that the defendant's breach of that duty of care was the proximate cause of tangible harm to the plaintiff (Dobbs, 2001).

In addition, and depending on the particular statutes in the state where the events occurred, the plaintiff may also have to establish that his own negligence was less than that of the defendant in order to recover at all. In other states, the negligence of the plaintiff will not necessarily preclude his recovery, but any award may be reduced by whatever percentage he is deemed responsible for his damages by virtue of his own contributory negligence.

Classes of Harm and Persons:

In negligence causes of action to recover damages for negligence based on a theory of failure to meet established safety standards, a plaintiff must establish that he was within the class of persons intended to be protected by those safety standards, and that the type of harm he suffered is the type of harm against which those safety standards were intended and designed to protect (Dobbs, 2001).

For example, Federal law may require buildings of certain heights to maintain warning lights on their roofs, to safeguard against low-flying aircraft. Likewise, local ordinances within many jurisdictions require that landlords provide safety banisters and appropriate lighting within common areas of multiple dwelling units, for the safety of residents. Where a low-flying aircraft crashes into a rooftop as a result of a negligent landlord's failure to replace a burnt out warning light, his negligence could give rise to numerous causes of actions based in negligence, because the harm that ensued was precisely within the class of harms intended to be prevented by the requirement to maintain a functioning rooftop warning light. Likewise, where the landlord's negligence in maintaining proper lighting and safety rails within public

areas results in harm to lawful residents of the dwelling, it will support a cause of action for negligence (Dobbs, 2001).

Conversely, where a tenant who is trespassing on the dwelling roof in violation of his lease agreement and/or local laws injures himself by tripping on the dark roof, the landlord's negligence in replacing the aircraft warning light will not support a negligence cause of action by the tenant, even if a functioning warning light would have provided enough light to avoid the accident. Similarly, tenants engaged in reckless conduct, such as skateboarding down the staircase guard rails, will not be able to hold the landlord's negligence against him, for providing guardrails in slight

violation of building codes (Dobbs, 2001).

In the case of the parapets at the Edgar Hotel, a defendant injured in the course of activities contemplated within the scope of the height requirement (such as a worker accessing the roof as part of his chores), would likely recover for the hotel's negligence in failing to provide parapets of adequate height. However, when