Negligence is still the highest-frequency torts structure. This guide keeps the analysis ordered so you do not jump from bad facts to liability without proving each element.
Negligence is still the highest-frequency torts structure. This guide keeps the analysis ordered so you do not jump from bad facts to liability without proving each element.
Very High priority
DUTY: General duty of reasonable care to foreseeable plaintiffs. Special relationships create affirmative duties (common carrier, innkeeper, employer). Landowners: Varies by entrant status (invitee, licensee, trespasser) - modern trend is reasonable care to all. BREACH: Failure to act as reasonably prudent person. Res ipsa loquitur: Accident doesn't normally occur without negligence, instrumentality in D's control, P didn't contribute. CAUSATION: Actual (but-for) + proximate (foreseeable). DAMAGES: Must have actual harm (not just risk). Eggshell plaintiff - take victim as you find them.
HYPO: Store employee mops floor but doesn't put up "Wet Floor" sign. Customer (P) slips, falls, and breaks hip. P sues Store. Store says another customer (X) spilled water and Store didn't know. Analyze negligence. ANALYSIS: DUTY: Store (landowner) owes invitees (customers) duty to keep premises reasonably safe and warn of known dangers. BREACH: If Store created hazard (employee mopped), failure to warn = breach. If X spilled and Store didn't know, need to show Store should have discovered (reasonable inspection). CAUSATION: But-for wet floor, P wouldn't have fallen. Foreseeable that wet floor causes falls. DAMAGES: Broken hip = physical harm. Could also use RES IPSA: People don't fall in stores normally; floor was Store's control. RESULT: P likely wins if Store mopped without warning OR failed reasonable inspection.
Section sources
Reasonableness
Breach asks whether the defendant fell below the reasonably prudent person standard under the circumstances. Use cost-benefit framing when the facts invite it, but do not force the Hand formula into every essay. Instead, compare the precaution the defendant skipped with the magnitude and likelihood of harm. Custom, statutes, and common safety practices can all help, but none automatically replace the reasonableness inquiry unless the question clearly points to negligence per se.
Section sources
Causation
Actual cause asks whether the injury would have happened but for the defendant’s conduct. Proximate cause asks whether the resulting harm is close enough in kind and sequence to justify liability. On the MBE, students often collapse both into a single sentence. Do not do that. Use but-for causation first. Then separately ask whether the harm is the kind of harm that made the conduct risky in the first place.
Section sources
Duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. Keeping the order stable prevents you from skipping the causal chain when the facts are emotionally compelling.
Use it in the breach discussion when direct proof is missing but the accident type ordinarily implies negligence and the instrumentality was in the defendant’s control.