How To Prove A California Negligence – General Claim
In California, a claim of Negligence – General is defined as:
Failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm.
It simply means:
When a party fails to do something that any reasonable person would think to do in that situation.
There are 4 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant had a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct to protect the plaintiff. The defendant was required by law to act in a careful way to avoid causing harm to the plaintiff, meaning they had a responsibility to follow certain rules or standards to keep others safe.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant was responsible for maintaining the safety of the premises where the incident occurred, creating a legal duty to protect visitors from harm.
* The defendant had a contractual obligation to ensure that all equipment used in the operation was safe and properly maintained.
* The defendant was aware of previous incidents involving similar hazards, establishing a duty to take preventive measures to protect others.
* The defendant’s role as a supervisor required them to enforce safety protocols to safeguard employees from foreseeable risks.
* The defendant was a licensed professional, which imposed a legal duty to adhere to industry standards and practices to protect clients. - Element 2. The defendant failed to meet this standard of conduct. The defendant did not act as a reasonable person would have in the same situation, which means they didn’t take the necessary care to prevent harm to others, leading to a claim of negligence.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant did not follow established safety protocols while operating machinery, leading to an accident.
* The defendant failed to provide adequate training to employees, resulting in a lack of knowledge about safety procedures.
* The defendant ignored multiple complaints about hazardous conditions in the workplace, demonstrating a disregard for employee safety.
* The defendant was aware of the risks associated with their actions but chose to proceed without implementing necessary precautions.
* The defendant’s actions directly violated industry standards, which are designed to protect individuals from harm. - Element 3. The plaintiff was harmed or injured. The plaintiff must show that they suffered some kind of harm or injury, whether physical, emotional, or financial, as a direct result of the defendant’s careless actions, proving that their well-being was negatively affected.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff suffered a broken leg after slipping on a wet floor in the defendant’s store, requiring surgery and extensive rehabilitation.
* The plaintiff incurred medical expenses exceeding $10,000 due to injuries sustained in the accident caused by the defendant’s negligence.
* The plaintiff experienced significant pain and suffering, impacting their ability to work and perform daily activities following the incident.
* The plaintiff’s emotional distress was exacerbated by the accident, leading to anxiety and depression that required professional treatment.
* The plaintiff lost wages for three months due to the inability to work as a result of the injuries sustained in the incident. - Element 4. The defendant’s failure was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury to the plaintiff. The defendant’s actions directly led to the injury suffered by the plaintiff, meaning that if the defendant hadn’t acted carelessly, the injury wouldn’t have happened.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant failed to maintain the property, leading to a hazardous condition that directly caused the plaintiff’s injury.
* The defendant ignored multiple warnings about the unsafe equipment, which ultimately resulted in the plaintiff’s accident.
* The defendant’s lack of proper training for employees contributed to the unsafe environment that injured the plaintiff.
* The defendant’s decision to operate machinery without safety measures in place was a direct factor in the plaintiff’s injuries.
* The defendant’s negligence in following safety protocols created a situation that foreseeably led to the plaintiff’s harm.
(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 400. Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church (1992) 8 *918 Cal. App.4th 828, 834. Ladd v. Cty. of San Mateo, 12 Cal. 4th 913, 917 (1996).)
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a claim of Negligence – General, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to navigate the complexities of your case effectively.
Prove Your CA Negligence – General Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only