Negligence and a Mechanism for Injury

Negligence

If you have been injured in an accident caused by someone else’s actions, we have to prove that the other party’s actions constitute negligence and that a mechanism for injury exists. 

Negligence is generally defined as the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances. It involves conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others from unreasonable risks of harm. Negligence can occur through either an act or an omission, where a person fails to do something that a reasonably prudent person would do, or does something that such a person would not do, under the given circumstances.

A reasonably prudent person is a standard of conduct based on what an average person of ordinary prudence would do in the same situation. It is a flexible standard and varies depending on the circumstances that exist at the time of the accident. If there is a level of danger that should reasonably be foreseen, the degree of care a reasonably prudent person would exercise increases. We analyze people in this context using what a person should know in the circumstances in which they were acting – for example, a person with a Commercial Drivers License is expected to know the rules and regulations, as well as their specific commercial vehicle, knowledge which is beyond what drivers with a Class A license are legally required to possess.

To establish negligence in a legal context, certain elements must be proven: (1) the existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) a causal connection between the breach and the plaintiff's injury, and (4) actual damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the breach. These elements are essential for proving a successful negligence claim.

Mechanism for Injury

A mechanism for injury in negligence law refers to the specific way in which harm occurs as a result of a defendant's negligent act or omission. Under Texas negligence law, a mechanism for injury involves the concept of proximate cause, which consists of two elements: cause in fact and foreseeability. Cause in fact requires that the negligent act or omission was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm and that, but for the negligent act or omission, the harm would not have occurred. Foreseeability means that the actor, as a person of ordinary intelligence, should have anticipated the danger created by their negligent act, though it does not require the actor to foresee the specific injury or the exact manner in which it occurred.

Additionally, Texas law distinguishes between injuries caused by negligent activities and those caused by dangerous conditions on premises. If the injury results from a negligent activity, it must have occurred as a contemporaneous result of the activity itself. Conversely, if the injury arises from a dangerous condition on the premises, it is governed by premises liability principles, which require proof of the property owner's duty and breach of that duty.

Furthermore, an intervening cause, also known as a new and independent cause, can break the causal connection between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injury. This occurs when the intervening cause is sufficient to be considered the true cause of the injury, thereby relieving the original defendant of liability.

There are legal doctrines that may change the analysis. For example, Texas law recognizes the eggshell plaintiff doctrine, which underscores that a defendant is liable for all injuries proximately caused by their negligence, even if the injuries are more severe due to the plaintiff's preexisting conditions. This doctrine does not shift the burden of proof but ensures that the defendant is responsible for the full extent of harm caused, regardless of the plaintiff's susceptibility to injury.