Five Elements Of Negligence

681 Words3 Pages
Whether Ben will be held liable of negligent per se for violating Texas’s Environmental Protection Laws provision regarding self-closing capped gas containers.

Rule of Law:
Negligence is the defendant’s conduct (the exercise of an act or the failure to act), failing to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable and prudent person in his position would exercise; and act in a way that breaches the duty to prevent the foreseeable risk of harm to anyone in the plaintiff’s position, and the defendant’s breach must be the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The five elements of negligence are: 1) Duty: Did the defendant owe plaintiff a legal obligation to exercise some level of care? 2) Breach: Did defendant’s conduct fail to meet the obligation owed to the plaintiff? Regarding the foreseeable risks created by the defendant’s conduct, was the act unreasonable under the circumstances? 3) Factual Causation (Cause in Fact): Is there a causal connection between the defendant’s unreasonable act and the plaintiff’s injuries? 4) Proximate Cause (Scope of Liability): Was the
…show more content…
The court would apply negligence per se when the plaintiff proves whether the statute satisfies class of persons, by showing that the plaintiff belongs to the class persons the statute was designed to protect, and class of harms, by showing that the plaintiff’s injuries is the type the statute was designed to prevent. According to the fact pattern, the Texas’s Environmental Protection Law provision in question, was intended to protect the environment, like the atmosphere and ground water sources; not the plaintiff. As for the class of harms, the statute was meant to prevent “vapors that cause greenhouse gases form escaping into the atmosphere or ground water sources and to protect against spillage that can also contaminate ground water;” not the burns suffered by the plaintiff. According to the test, the statute would not be
Get Access