Negligence Is Unintentional Conduct

The issue is negligence.

Negligence is unintentional conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonably great risks of harm.

A. The plaintiff's prima facie case:

Prima facie means the amount of evidence the plaintiff needs to produce so as to survive a motion to dismiss; the amount of evidence needed to continue on with the case.

1. Duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Duty is the imposition by law of the necessity of using reasonable care when one is engaging in any affirmative conduct that creates an unreasonably great risk of harm to others.

The source of the duty here is occupation of land.

Plaintiff: Tanya was owed a duty as an invitee into the dorm building which receives the highest level of due care possible. UCLA is a school; the school owes a duty to Tanya and every other invitee to provide safe premises.

Defendant: UCLA has our visitors sign in so we know who is in the building and Tanya did not sign in. Handy slipped in during a fire drill and was not let in willingly.

2. Breach of Duty

Breach of duty is conduct by the D that creates an unusually great risk of harm to others. To show breach of duty, one applies the "reasonable and prudent person" test. A reasonable and prudent person is one who is very cautious or careful; this test looks at how a reasonable and prudent person would have acted in the same or similar circumstances.

Plaintiff: A reasonable and prudent person would be more cautious during the fire drill to make sure an unknown male did not slip into an all-girls dorm. A reasonable and prudent person would also check the locks on the dorm rooms to make sure safety was being enforced. A reasonably and prudent person would have done something to take caution or warn the students about the attacks going on around UCLA, which they did not warn the students until that day with a letter.

Defendant: The school checks the locks regularly. The lock may have been defective recently by the actual girl living in that dorm room. Or maybe the lock was reported as defective, but knowing the girl was going to be out of her room for the weekend, the school may have been fixing it before she got back, but the girl never signed in to let them know someone would be staying in that room sooner than the original occupant.

3. Cause-in-Fact

Cause in fact seeks to isolate the sole causative element. In doing so, the law employs the "but for" test.

a. The "but for" test: But for the defendant's negligent initial conduct, would the plaintiff have been injured? That is, but for UCLA's negligent conduct, would Tanya have been injured?

Defendant: Yes, Tanya would have been injured, or suffered damages, but for the universities' failure to keep unwanted trespassers out of their all-girls

...