N NEGLIGENCEEXAM LAB References ↗
FALL LAUNCHCHAPTER THREE

NEGLIGENCE PART ONE · DUTY + BREACH

Build the standard.
Then test the conduct.

Master duty, the reasonable-person variations, risk-utility breach, statutory standards, circumstantial proof, affirmative duties, and premises liability—without collapsing distinct issues into one vague assertion of carelessness.

Begin the lesson → Take the 30-question quiz

✓ Lesson, flashcards, and questions adapted from the supplied Chapter Three course materials.

EXAM SEQUENCEKeep the boxes separate
  1. 01
    DutyRecognized obligation
  2. 02
    StandardActor + circumstances
  3. 03
    BreachRisk versus precaution
  4. 04
    CauseActual + proximate
  5. 05
    DamagesLegally recognized harm
DUTY IS NOT BREACH
35lesson sections
89CSV flashcards
30exam questions
5analysis moves

THE CENTRAL DISTINCTION

Duty asks what the law requires. Breach asks what the defendant did.

A strong answer first identifies the source and scope of the obligation, then states the governing standard, and only then compares the defendant’s conduct with reasonable precautions. “The defendant had a duty not to text” is usually too compressed. The duty is reasonable care; texting is evidence of breach.

NEGLIGENCE ARCHITECTURE

Five disciplined moves from obligation to liability.

Select a move to see the precise question an examiner expects you to answer.

AFFIRMATIVE DUTY GATE

When the allegation is a failure to act, identify the legal hook.

Traditional law ordinarily distinguishes risk creation from nonfeasance. Moral blame alone is not the doctrinal source of a duty.

STANDARD SELECTOR

Choose the actor before judging the conduct.

The ordinary standard is objective but contextual. Some actors require a specialized comparison.

RISK–UTILITY LAB

Translate “careless” into a concrete precaution.

The Hand formula is an organizing tool, not a substitute for factual analysis. Compare the burden of precaution with foreseeable probability and gravity.

HAND FORMULA
B<P × L

This comparison supports breach analysis; custom, utility, alternatives, emergency conditions, and qualitative evidence may still matter.

PREMISES LIABILITY MAP

Classify first under traditional law.

Then identify any modern unitary reasonable-care approach and explain how entrant status affects foreseeability and precautions.

COMPLETE CHAPTER READER

Search and study the full Chapter Three lesson.

Lesson sections

ACTIVE RECALL · ROUTE-LEVEL CSV

Rule Sprint flashcards.

The page automatically loads flashcards.csv from this same route. Say the answer aloud, reveal the rule, and mark it mastered.

Loading flashcards.csv…The CSV must remain beside index.html.

30-QUESTION PRACTICE LAB

Test doctrine, receive analysis, and review misses.

Question 1 of 300 correct
NEGLIGENCE

EXAM ATTACK SHEET

A negligence paragraph should move in a controlled order.

Use the checklist to prevent the most common structural omissions.

MODEL ANALYSIS SENTENCE

Because the low-cost inspection would likely have discovered a concealed condition capable of causing severe injury to foreseeable invitees, a court could find that the burden of precaution was slight compared with the probability and magnitude of harm, supporting breach.