Restatement (Second) of Torts
§ 281 Statement of the Elements of a Cause of Action for Negligence
Summary
Section 281 sets forth the essential elements of a negligence cause of action. To prevail, a plaintiff must establish that (a) the defendant owed a duty of care, (b) the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, (c) there is a reasonably close causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury (proximate cause), and (d) the plaintiff suffered actual loss or damage.
This section provides the analytical framework for the most commonly litigated tort. Each element is independently necessary—failure to establish any one defeats the claim. The duty element is a question of law for the court, while breach, causation, and damages are generally questions of fact for the jury.
The standard of care is that of a reasonable person under like circumstances, an objective standard that does not vary based on the individual defendant’s capabilities (with limited exceptions for physical disabilities, children, and professionals). Breach is determined by weighing the probability and gravity of harm against the burden of adequate precautions—the famous Hand Formula from United States v. Carroll Towing Co.
Key Elements
- 1Duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff
- 2Breach of that duty by failing to meet the standard of care
- 3Causation—both actual (but-for) and proximate cause
- 4Actual damages suffered by the plaintiff
- 5Standard of care is the reasonable person under the circumstances
Practical Application
Section 281 frames virtually every negligence case, from automobile accidents to medical malpractice to premises liability. Courts use this framework to structure jury instructions and to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate. The section’s influence extends to statutory negligence claims, where the duty element may be supplied by a statute or regulation.
Exam Relevance
Section 281 is the backbone of torts exams. Every negligence analysis should follow this four-element structure. Common pitfalls: confusing duty (a legal question) with breach (a factual question), conflating actual and proximate cause, and forgetting that actual damages are required (unlike intentional torts, where nominal damages may suffice).