document_title: 10 Cloverfield Lane

question_text: where was the movie 10 cloverfield lane filmed

text: 10 Cloverfield Lane

text: Plot[edit]

text: Following a breakup with her fiancé, Michelle leaves New Orleans. Driving through a road in rural Louisiana that night, she hears radio news reports of blackouts in major cities. As she is distracted by her phone ringing, her car is suddenly hit by an oncoming truck and rolls off the road, which knocks her unconscious. She awakes chained to a wall in a concrete room. A man named Howard unlocks the door and says he is going to keep her alive. After she unsuccessfully tries to ambush him, he explains that he saved her life by bringing her to his underground bunker because there has been a massive attack − possibly by Russians, North Koreans, or Martians − and everyone is dead. He tells a doubtful Michelle that she cannot leave because the nuclear or chemical fallout has poisoned the air for one or two years.

text: Once she is calmer, Howard takes Michelle on a tour of the well-stocked bunker and she meets the other injured inhabitant, Emmett, who found his way there after seeing a red flash outside. Howard shows Michelle to the outside hatch and through the window points out two dead pigs, evidence of the contamination outside. Michelle also sees Howard's truck and regains the memory of it forcing her off the road.

text: During the trio's first dinner together, Michelle steals his keys to the hatch, but as she is about to open the door, through the window she sees a woman covered with severe skin lesions, begging to be let inside. Michelle realizes Howard was right and returns his keys. Howard confesses that he had accidentally struck Michelle's car in a panic to get to his bunker.

text: As time passes, the trio begin adapting to life underground, developing a family-like relationship. However, Howard is intolerant towards Emmett and only perceives Michelle as a little girl. Howard opens up about his daughter who is "not with us anymore". When a ventilator fails, Michelle climbs through an air vent to fix it, being the only one small enough to go through. She discovers a second hatch leading outside, closed with several padlocks and with the word "HELP" scratched on the inside of the viewport so it could be seen from outside. Michelle and Emmett covertly discuss the inconsistencies in Howard's story, realizing that the "daughter" was actually a local girl known by Emmett who went missing two years prior. They secretly begin fashioning a makeshift Hazmat suit to escape the bunker.

text: Howard discovers several of his tools have gone missing, and interrogates the two, threatening to kill them by immersion in a barrel of perchloric acid. Emmett takes full responsibility and claims that he was trying to make a weapon to get Howard's gun, but that Michelle knew nothing, after which Howard shoots him dead. He later finds the biohazard suit in Michelle's room, and becomes angry. Michelle manages to escape, discovering Emmett's body dissolving in the acid. Michelle kicks the barrel over and Howard falls into the liquid, which burns him and ignites an electrical fire. Michelle escapes through the air vent, dons the suit and opens the shaft.

text: Outside, she sees birds flying overhead, prompting her to remove her mask and believe that everything Howard told her about the attack was a lie. However, she then sees a tentacled biomechanical spacecraft floating in the distance. She then speculates that the 'attack' that Howard mentioned before was actually an alien invasion of Earth. Suddenly, the bunker explodes from the fire, drawing the craft's attention. Michelle is stalked by an alien creature and after the craft releases a green gas, she is forced to put the biomask back on. She takes shelter in Howard's truck but the craft's tentacles pick it up and raise it towards the ship. Finding the components for a Molotov cocktail, she throws it into the maw of the craft, which explodes, dropping the truck.

text: Michelle drives away, knocking over a mailbox reading "10 Cloverfield”. On the radio she hears of successful human resistance efforts, with the southern coast of North America having been liberated. Survivors are instructed to evacuate north while those able to aid the fight are directed to Houston. At an intersection, Michelle decides to head for Houston, where red lights are seen above the city. As she drives south, lightning flashes reveal larger alien spacecraft heading in the same direction.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
John Goodman as Howard Stambler[6]
Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Michelle[7]
John Gallagher, Jr. as Emmett DeWitt
Bradley Cooper as Ben (voice)[8]
Suzanne Cryer as Leslie

text: Production[edit]

text: Development[edit]

text: 10 Cloverfield Lane originated from an "ultra low budget" spec script penned by Josh Campbell and Matt Stuecken, titled The Cellar.[9][10] The Tracking Board included the script in "The Hit List" of 2012[10] – an annually published list of spec scripts written within the year that have impressed its voting members.[11] In 2012, Paramount Pictures bought the script and commenced further development under Bad Robot Productions for Insurge Pictures, Paramount's specialty label for films with a micro-budget. When Bad Robot became involved, the film was assigned the codename Valencia to keep exact details of the production a secret.[12]

text: Damien Chazelle was brought in to rewrite Campbell and Stuecken's draft and direct the film. Chazelle dropped out from directing when his Whiplash project received funding.[7] On April 3, 2014, it was reported production for Valencia was greenlit to begin in the fall of 2014, under the direction of Dan Trachtenberg with the latest draft being written by Dan Casey.[13] A budget of about $5 million was reported to be expected, in keeping with the mandate of Paramount's Insurge division of producing micro-budgeted films.[14]

text: On July 8, 2014, Variety reported John Goodman was in negotiations to star in the film.[15] On August 25, 2014, they reported Mary Elizabeth Winstead had entered negotiations,[16] and on September 22, 2014, John Gallagher, Jr. reportedly joined the cast.[17]

text: During production, the filmmakers noticed core similarities to Cloverfield,[18] and decided to make the picture what Abrams calls "a blood relative" or "spiritual successor" of that film.[19][20] "The spirit of it, the genre of it, the heart of it, the fear factor, the comedy factor, the weirdness factor, there were so many elements that felt like the DNA of this story were of the same place that Cloverfield was born out of," said Abrams. In other interviews he explained: "Those characters and that monster [from Cloverfield] are not in this movie, but there are other characters and other monsters,"[20] and "This movie is very purposefully not called Cloverfield 2, because it's not Cloverfield 2, [...] So if you're approaching it as a literal sequel, you'll be surprised to see what this movie is. But while it's not what you might expect from a movie that has the name Cloverfield in it, I think you'll find that you'll understand the connection when you see the whole thing."[21][22][23] Winstead and Gallagher mentioned that during production they were aware that the film had thematic similarities to Cloverfield, but did not learn that there would be an official connection until they were informed of the chosen title, only a few days before the release of the trailer.[24] Abrams came up with the title after finishing Star Wars: The Force Awakens.[25][26]

text: In a March 2015 interview, a few months after production wrapped, Winstead was asked about her experience during Valencia and described it as a "really contained film", reiterating the premise of The Cellar about a woman being trapped with her mysterious savior in a supposed post-nuclear fallout world.[27] Later in the month, Insurge Pictures was reported to have been dismantled and its staff absorbed by its parent company. Insurge's only film that had yet to be released was reported to be Valencia.[28] Speaking of rewrites that took place during production, Winstead called them "nothing that was major".[29]

text: During an interview with Abrams to promote 10 Cloverfield Lane, he said the creative team behind the original had some ideas on developing Cloverfield 2, but the release of films such as Godzilla and Pacific Rim led them to abandon them as they found the concept of kaiju films played out.[21]

text: Filming[edit]

text: Principal photography on the film began on October 20, 2014 in New Orleans, Louisiana.[30] Filming took place in chronological order on only one set.[31] Scenes involving explosions, fire, and smoke were shot in early December 2014 in Hahnville, Louisiana.[32] Filming ended on December 15, 2014.[33]

text: Music[edit]

text: Bear McCreary composed the music for the film.[31] The soundtrack was digitally released on March 11, 2016.[34]

text: Marketing[edit]

text: The film's title was revealed on January 15, 2016 in a trailer attached to 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.[19] As with Cloverfield, a viral marketing campaign was used that included elements of an alternate reality game. Bad Robot kick-started the campaign in early February 2016 by updating the Tagruato.jp website[6] used in the original. The campaign revealed backstory information about the character Howard Stambler and his daughter.[35]

text: Release[edit]

text: The film was released in select countries on March 10, 2016, in regular and IMAX theaters, before its official release in North America on March 11, also in conventional and IMAX theaters.[36] Those who attended screenings of the film at AMC IMAX theaters were eligible to receive collectible movie posters, which illustrated the three main characters separately.[37] The film was rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association of America for "thematic material including frightening sequences of threat with some violence, and brief language".[38]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: 10 Cloverfield Lane grossed $72.1 million in the United States and $38.1 million in other territories for a worldwide total of $110.2 million.[4]

text: In the United States and Canada, the film made $1.8 million from its Thursday night previews at 2,500 theaters,[39][40][41] and $8 million on its first day (including Thursday previews).[42] In its opening weekend, it earned $24.7 million, finishing in second place at the box office behind Zootopia ($51.3 million), which was in its second weekend.[43]

text: Outside North America, 10 Cloverfield Lane received a staggered release,[44] across 54 countries.[45] It earned $1.5 million in its opening weekend from six international markets with a bulk of it coming from Australia ($1 million).[44] Overall, the top openings were in the United Kingdom and Ireland ($2.2 million), South Korea ($1.7 million), and France ($1.4 million).[46][47]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: 10 Cloverfield Lane received positive reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a rating of 90%, based on 274 reviews, with a weighted average score of 7.5/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Smart, solidly crafted, and palpably tense, 10 Cloverfield Lane makes the most of its confined setting and outstanding cast—and suggests a new frontier for franchise filmmaking."[48] Metacritic gives the film a score of 76 out of 100, based on 43 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[49] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B–" on an A+ to F scale.[50]

text: Bill Zwecker of the Chicago Sun-Times gave 10 Cloverfield Lane four stars out of four, commending the film as "continually gripping and extremely engrossing ... [Dan Trachtenberg] helmed this film with artistry, imagination and skillful precision."[51] Jeannette Catsoulis of the New York Times praised the cast's performance and Jeff Cutter's cinematography, while writing: "Sneakily tweaking our fears of terrorism, '10 Cloverfield Lane,' though no more than a kissing cousin to its namesake, is smartly chilling and finally spectacular. A sequel is virtually a given."[52] Alan Scherstuhl of Village Voice also praised the acting and technical aspects, but wrote that the film "is less compelling in terms of character and meaning."[53]

text: In a mixed review for Slant, Chuck Bowen found a lack of character development between the three leads, and labeled the film's ending as anticlimactic. Bowen also writes: "The film hits its expositional narrative marks and nothing else ... 10 Cloverfield Lane will almost immediately evaporate from the mind, before J.J. Abrams commences in selling you the same thing all over again."[54] Soren Andersen of the Seattle Times, who gave 10 Cloverfield Lane one and half stars out of four, similarly criticized the film's ending, labeling it as "full-bore" and "Too little. Too late."[55] James Verniere of the Boston Herald disapproved of the characters and pacing, and he ultimately described the film as "a crummy, low-rent, intellectually bereft thriller."[56]

text: Accolades[edit]

text:
Association
Category
Nominee(s)
Result
Ref.

Bram Stoker Awards
Superior Achievement in a Screenplay
Josh Campbell, Damien Chazelle and Matthew Stuecken
Nominated
[57]

Critics' Choice Awards
Best Sci-Fi/Horror Movie
10 Cloverfield Lane
Nominated
[58]

Directors Guild of America Awards
Outstanding Directing – First-Time Feature Film
Dan Trachtenberg
Nominated
[59]

Empire Awards
Best Sci-Fi/Fantasy
10 Cloverfield Lane
Nominated
[60]

Fangoria Chainsaw Awards
Best Film
10 Cloverfield Lane
Nominated
[61]

Best Actor
John Goodman
Won

Golden Tomato Awards
Best Sci-Fi/Fantasy Movie 2016
10 Cloverfield Lane
2nd Place
[62]

Hollywood Music in Media Awards
Best Original Score – Sci-Fi/Fantasy Film
Bear McCreary
Nominated
[63]
[64]

IndieWire Critics Poll
Best Supporting Actor
John Goodman
10th Place
[65]

Saturn Awards
Best Thriller Film
10 Cloverfield Lane
Won
[66]

Best Actress
Mary Elizabeth Winstead
Won

Best Supporting Actor
John Goodman
Won

Best Editing
Stefan Grube
Nominated

St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association
Best Horror/Science-Fiction Film
10 Cloverfield Lane
Nominated
[67]

Teen Choice Awards
Choice Movie: Drama
10 Cloverfield Lane
Nominated
[68]

text: Future[edit]

text: Having originally planned the film as a direct sequel to Cloverfield, Abrams suggested that he has thought of something that if they are lucky enough to get it made "could be really cool that [it] connects some stories" in a third film, even teasing a larger Cloverfield universe.[21][69] Interviews with Trachtenberg and Winstead confirm that the movie is, and always was intended to be, an expansion of the first film, with Trachtenberg calling it the "Cloververse".[70] Winstead has voiced her interest in returning for another installment.[71]

text: In October 2016, it was revealed that the Abrams-produced God Particle will be the third installment in the Cloverfield franchise.[72]


document_title: The Magic School Bus (TV series)

question_text: who sang the theme song for the magic school bus

root

text: The Magic School Bus (TV series)

text: Characters[edit]

text: Ms. Frizzle (voiced by Lily Tomlin)

tag: ul

text: Episodes[edit]

text:
Season
Episodes
Originally aired

First aired
Last aired

1
13
September 10, 1994
December 3, 1994

2
13
September 9, 1995
December 2, 1995

3
13
September 14, 1996
December 25, 1996

4
13
September 13, 1997
December 6, 1997

tag: table

text: Production and broadcast[edit]

text: In 1994, The Magic School Bus concept was made into an animated series of the same name by Scholastic Entertainment and it premiered on September 10, 1994. The idea for the show was thought up by Former Scholastic Entertainment Vice President and Senior Editorial Director Craig Walker. Scholastic Entertainment president Deborah Forte said that adapting the books into an animated series was an opportunity to help kids "learn about science in a fun way".[3] Around that time, Forte had been hearing concerns from parents and teachers about how to improve science education for girls and minorities across the globe.[3] Each episode of the series ran for 30 minutes. In the United States, the series originally aired on PBS as a part of its children's block, PBS Kids, through South Carolina's SCETV network; it was the first fully animated series to be aired on PBS. The last episode aired on December 6, 1997; the series then aired reruns on PBS until October 1998. Fox Kids Network, in a hasty effort to fill educational television mandates for its stations, aired repeats on its weekday block from September 1998 to September 2002. Starting September 27, 2010, The Magic School Bus started a daily run on Qubo in the US, and on Saturday mornings on NBC. The Fox Kids and Qubo airings both used a shortened version of the opening. Based on information from their website, Qubo no longer carries The Magic School Bus in their programming lineup.

tag: p

text: The Magic School Bus was also seen on TLC from February 24, 2003 until 2008, and aired on the Ready Set Learn block on Discovery Kids from 2004 to 2009,[3] TVOntario and the Knowledge Network in Canada and Pop, Channel 4 and CITV in the United Kingdom, with no plans to make more episodes. The series was widely known in Canada for showing reruns on CBC as part of its children's block, now known as Kids' CBC, from 1999 to 2004. In 2005, Nelvana sold the series to Latin America's Cartoon Network.[4]

text: When The Magic School Bus was syndicated on commercial networks, the Producer Says segment at the end of each episode was cut out to make space for commercials. The Producer Says segments were only seen when the series was shown on non-commercial networks, international networks, VHS, and DVD releases. Within the episodes, there were also time points where the episode fades out and then fades back in after a series of commercials are shown. On non-commercial networks, VHS, and DVD releases the scene immediately fades back in right after it fades out as no commercials are shown.

text: The show's theme song called "Ride on the Magic School Bus" was written by Peter Lurye and performed by rock 'n' roll legend Little Richard.[5]

text: The show was produced through cel animation and in an audio style reminiscent of Hanna-Barbera cartoons of the 1970s and 1980s. The show's voice director was Susan Blu, two of the writers for the show were Brian Muehl and Jocelyn Stevenson, who also worked on Fraggle Rock.

text: On the PBS version, the show was funded by the National Science Foundation, Microsoft Home, the US Department of Energy, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the annual financial support from the viewers/stations of PBS. The show was close-captioned by the National Captioning Institute when it aired on PBS.

text: Broadcast history[edit]

text: In the United States, The Magic School Bus series was presented by PBS from its inception until 1998, then by Fox Kids from 1998 until 2002. Child-oriented network Qubo showed episodes between 2010 and 2012. In Canada, it ran on Teletoon from 1998 until 2000, and has run on TVO Kids from 1998 until the present time. It was presented internationally by Discovery Kids from 2004 to 2009, and in the UK, Latin America, Australia, Spain, and India by Nickelodeon from 1995 to 2003. It was also shown in the UK by Pop from 2003 to 2007. It aired for some time on Channel 4 from 1996 to 2000. It also aired on CITV from 1995 to 2002. Other airers have included Disney Channel (Japan, 2003 to 2005), Kindernet (2003 to 2007), EBS of South Korea (1995 to 1999), Boomerang (Latin America, 2001 - 2004), The Den (Ireland) from 1995 to 2000 and Channel 6 (Israel), 1999 to 2002.

text: Home media[edit]

text: The series was originally released on VHS by KidVision between 1995 and 2003 and by PBS Home Video between 1998 and 2002, and on DVD by Warner Home Video between 2002 and 2013. Only the DVDs contain the funding credits. In the home video releases, all the episodes are uncut with the Producer Says segments intact. In the UK, it was broadcast until mid-2007 when it was removed off the air on Pop channel.

text: On July 31, 2012, New Video Group released the complete series on DVD in Region 1 for the very first time.[6]

text: On August 15, 2013, Scholastic announced the entire series would be available on Netflix.[7]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Jason Fry, in a column for the online edition of The Wall Street Journal, expressed an overall appreciation for the show, but wrote that the episode "The Magic School Bus Gets Programmed" should have been about the perils of Internet searches and network concepts surfacing at the time, rather than an old-fashioned technology-run-amok story about the respective roles of programmer and machine (although he conceded that the episode was ten years old).[8]

text: Tomlin won a Daytime Emmy for her role as Ms. Frizzle.[9]

text: Awards and nominations[edit]

text:
Year
Nominee/work
Award
Result

1998
The Magic School Bus
ALMA Award for Outstanding Program for Children or Youth
Nominated

1997
The Magic School Bus
Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Children's Animated Program
Nominated

1997
Lily Tomlin (for playing "Ms. Frizzle")
Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Performer in an Animated Program
Nominated

1997
The Magic School Bus
Television Critics Association Award for Outstanding Achievement in Children's Programming
Nominated

1996
Lily Tomlin (for playing "Ms. Frizzle")
Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Performer in an Animated Program
Nominated

1996
Milton Buras (for episode "Halloween Special")
Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Hairstyling
Nominated

1996
The Magic School Bus
Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Children's Animated Program
Nominated

1996
The Magic School Bus
NCLR Bravo Award for Outstanding Program for Children or Youth
Nominated

1995
Lily Tomlin (for playing "Ms. Frizzle")
Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Performer in an Animated Program
Won

1995
The Magic School Bus title designers and graphic artists
Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Graphics and Title Design
Nominated

1995
The Magic School Bus (for episode "...Meets the Rot Squad")
USA Environmental Media Award for Children's Animated Program
Nominated

text: Games[edit]

text: Various computer and video games associated with the series were released from 1994 to 2001, and were typically amalgamations of storylines from both the original book series and the television show. The games were published by Microsoft.

text: A video game titled The Magic School Bus: Oceans was released for Nintendo DS on October 25, 2011, ten years after the release of the last game. The video game, similar to the computer game before it, was likely based on the book, The Magic School Bus On the Ocean Floor and the TV episode, The Magic School Bus Gets Eaten. This is the only game to have been released for the Nintendo platform.

text: Revival series[edit]

text: On June 10, 2014, a new series was announced by Netflix and Scholastic Media titled The Magic School Bus 360°.[10][11] The new iteration of the franchise features a modernized Ms. Frizzle and high-tech bus that stresses modern inventions such as robotics, wearables and camera technology. The producers hoped to captivate children's imaginations and motivate their interest in the sciences.[12][13] 9 Story Media Group would produce the series.[14] Producer Stuart Stone, who voiced Ralphie in the original series, stated that The Magic School Bus 360° will feature some of the original voice actors in different roles. The show's voice cast is based in Los Angeles, California, United States and Toronto, Ontario, Canada with Susan Blu as the Los Angeles voice director and Alyson Court as the Toronto voice director.[15]

text: In February 2017, Netflix announced that Kate McKinnon was cast in the role of Fiona Felicity Frizzle, the younger sister of Ms. Frizzle, now Professor Frizzle. Lily Tomlin would reprise her role as Ms. Frizzle. By this point the title of the series had been changed to The Magic School Bus Rides Again.[16] Lin-Manuel Miranda of Hamilton fame would sing the theme song.[17] The series was released on Netflix on September 29, 2017.[18]


document_title: Negligence

question_text: which is the first step in establishing liability

text: Negligence

text: Elements of negligence claims[edit]

text: Some things must be established by anyone who wants to sue in negligence. These are what are called the "elements" of negligence.

text: Most jurisdictions say that there are four elements to a negligence action:[5]

text:
duty: the defendant has a duty to others, including the plaintiff, to exercise reasonable care,
breach: the defendant breaches that duty through an act or culpable omission,
damages: as a result of that act or omission, the plaintiff suffers an injury, and
causation: the injury to the plaintiff is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's act or omission.

tag: ol

text: Some jurisdictions narrow the definition down to three elements: duty, breach and proximately caused harm.[6] Some jurisdictions recognize five elements, duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages.[6] However, at their heart, the various definitions of what constitutes negligent conduct are very similar.

text: Duty of care[edit]

text: The legal liability of a defendant to a plaintiff is based on the defendant's failure to fulfil a responsibility, recognised by law, of which the plaintiff is the intended beneficiary. The first step in determining the existence of a legally recognised responsibility is the concept of an obligation or duty. In the tort of negligence the term used is duty of care [7]

text: The case of Donoghue v Stevenson[8] [1932] established the modern law of negligence, laying the foundations of the duty of care and the fault principle which, (through the Privy Council), have been adopted throughout the Commonwealth. May Donoghue and her friend were in a café in Paisley. The friend bought Mrs Donoghue a ginger beer float. She drank some of the beer and later poured the remainder over her ice-cream and was horrified to see the decomposed remains of a snail exit the bottle. Donoghue suffered nervous shock and gastro-enteritis, but did not sue the cafe owner, instead suing the manufacturer, Stevenson. (As Mrs Donoghue had not herself bought the ginger beer, the doctrine of privity precluded a contractual action against Stevenson).

text: The Scottish judge, Lord MacMillan, considered the case to fall within a new category of delict (the Scots law nearest equivalent of tort). The case proceeded to the House of Lords, where Lord Atkin interpreted the biblical ordinance to 'love thy neighbour' as a legal requirement to 'not harm thy neighbour.' He then went on to define neighbour as "persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question."

text: In England the more recent case of Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] introduced a 'threefold test' for a duty of care. Harm must be (1) reasonably foreseeable (2) there must be a relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and defendant and (3) it must be 'fair, just and reasonable' to impose liability. However, these act as guidelines for the courts in establishing a duty of care; much of the principle is still at the discretion of judges.

text: In Australia, Donoghue v Stevenson was used as a persuasive precedent in the case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (AKR) (1936).[9] This was a landmark case in the development of negligence law in Australia.[10]

text: Whether a duty of care is owed for psychiatric, as opposed to physical, harm was discussed in the Australian case of Tame v State of New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002).[11][12] Determining a duty for mental harm has now been subsumed into the Civil Liability Act 2002 in New South Wales.[13] The application of Part 3 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) was demonstrated in Wicks v SRA (NSW); Sheehan v SRA (NSW).[14]

text: Breach of duty[edit]

text: Once it is established that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff/claimant, the matter of whether or not that duty was breached must be settled. The test is both subjective and objective. The defendant who knowingly (subjective) exposes the plaintiff/claimant to a substantial risk of loss, breaches that duty. The defendant who fails to realize the substantial risk of loss to the plaintiff/claimant, which any reasonable person [objective] in the same situation would clearly have realized, also breaches that duty.[15][16] However, whether the test is objective or subjective may depend upon the particular case involved.

text: There is a reduced threshold for the standard of care owed by children. In the Australian case of McHale v Watson,[17] McHale, a 9-year-old girl was blinded in one eye after being hit by the ricochet of a sharp metal rod thrown by a 12-year-old girl, Watson. The defendant child was held not to have the level of care to the standard of an adult, but of a 12-year-old child with similar experience and intelligence. Kitto J explained that a child's lack of foresight is a characteristic they share with others at that stage of development.

text: Certain jurisdictions, also provide for breaches where professionals, such as doctors, fail to warn of risks associated with medical treatments or procedures. Doctors owe both objective and subjective duties to warn; and breach of either is sufficient to satisfy this element in a court of law. For example, the Civil Liability Act in Queensland outlines a statutory test incorporating both objective and subjective elements.[18] For example, an obstetrician who fails to warn a mother of complications arising from childbirth may be held to have breached their professional duty of care.

text: In Donoghue v Stevenson, Lord Atkin declared that "the categories of negligence are never closed"; and in Dorset Yacht v Home Office it was held that the government had no immunity from suit when they negligently failed to prevent the escape of juvenile offenders who subsequently vandalise a boatyard. In other words, all members of society have a duty to exercise reasonable care toward others and their property. In Bolton v. Stone (1951),[19] the House of Lords held that a defendant was not negligent if the damage to the plaintiff were not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his conduct. In the case, a Miss Stone was struck on the head by a cricket ball while standing outside a cricket ground. Finding that no batsman would normally be able hit a cricket ball far enough to reach a person standing as far away as was Miss Stone, the court held her claim would fail because the danger was not reasonably or sufficiently foreseeable. As stated in the opinion, 'reasonable risk' cannot be judged with the benefit of hindsight.[citation needed] In Roe v Minister of Health,[20] Lord Denning said the past should not be viewed through rose coloured spectacles, finding no negligence on the part of medical professionals accused of using contaminated medical jars, since contemporary standards would have indicated only a low possibility of medical jar contamination.

text: United States v. Carroll Towing Co. 159 F.2d 169 (2d. Cir. 1947)

text: For the rule in the U.S., see: Calculus of negligence

text: Intention and/or malice[edit]

text: Further establishment of conditions of intention or malice where applicable may apply in cases of gross negligence.[21]

text: Causation[edit]

text: In order for liability to result from a negligent act or omission, it is necessary to prove not only that the injury was caused by that negligence, but also that there is a legally sufficient connection between the act and the negligence.

text: Factual causation (actual cause)[edit]

text: For a defendant to be held liable, it must be shown that the particular acts or omissions were the cause of the loss or damage sustained.[22] Although the notion sounds simple, the causation between one's breach of duty and the harm that results to another can at times be very complicated. The basic test is to ask whether the injury would have occurred 'but for', or without, the accused party's breach of the duty owed to the injured party.[23][24][25] In Australia, the High Court has held that the 'but for' test is not the exclusive test of causation because it cannot address a situation where there is more than one cause of damage.[24] When 'but for' test is not satisfied and the case is an exceptional one, a commonsense test ('Whether and Why' test) will be applied[26] Even more precisely, if a breaching party materially increases the risk of harm to another, then the breaching party can be sued to the value of harm that he caused.

text: Asbestos litigations which have been ongoing for decades revolve around the issue of causation. Interwoven with the simple idea of a party causing harm to another are issues on insurance bills and compensations, which sometimes drove compensating companies out of business.

text: Legal causation (proximate cause)[edit]

text: Sometimes factual causation is distinguished from 'legal causation' to avert the danger of defendants being exposed to, in the words of Cardozo, J., "liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class."[27] It is said a new question arises of how remote a consequence a person's harm is from another's negligence. We say that one's negligence is 'too remote' (in England) or not a 'proximate cause' (in the U.S.) of another's harm if one would 'never' reasonably foresee it happening. Note that a 'proximate cause' in U.S. terminology (to do with the chain of events between the action and the injury) should not be confused with the 'proximity test' under the English duty of care (to do with closeness of relationship). The idea of legal causation is that if no one can foresee something bad happening, and therefore take care to avoid it, how could anyone be responsible? For instance, in Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co.[28] the judge decided that the defendant, a railway, was not liable for an injury suffered by a distant bystander. The plaintiff, Palsgraf, was hit by scales that fell on her as she waited on a train platform. The scales fell because of a far-away commotion. A train conductor had run to help a man into a departing train. The man was carrying a package as he jogged to jump in the train door. The package had fireworks in it. The conductor mishandled the passenger or his package, causing the package to fall. The fireworks slipped and exploded on the ground causing shockwaves to travel through the platform. As a consequence, the scales fell.[29] Because Palsgraf was hurt by the falling scales, she sued the train company who employed the conductor for negligence.[30]

text: The defendant train company argued it should not be liable as a matter of law, because despite the fact that they employed the employee, who was negligent, his negligence was too remote from the plaintiff's injury. On appeal, the majority of the court agreed, with four judges adopting the reasons, written by Judge Cardozo, that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, because a duty was owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs. Three judges dissented, arguing, as written by Judge Andrews, that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, regardless of foreseeability, because all men owe one another a duty not to act negligently.

text: Such disparity of views on the element of remoteness continues to trouble the judiciary. Courts that follow Cardozo's view have greater control in negligence cases. If the court can find that, as a matter of law, the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, the plaintiff will lose his case for negligence before having a chance to present to the jury. Cardozo's view is the majority view. However, some courts follow the position put forth by Judge Andrews. In jurisdictions following the minority rule, defendants must phrase their remoteness arguments in terms of proximate cause if they wish the court to take the case away from the jury.

text: Remoteness takes another form, seen in The Wagon Mound (No. 2).[31] The Wagon Mound was a ship in Sydney harbour. The ship leaked oil creating a slick in part of the harbour. The wharf owner asked the ship owner about the danger and was told he could continue his work because the slick would not burn. The wharf owner allowed work to continue on the wharf, which sent sparks onto a rag in the water which ignited and created a fire which burnt down the wharf. The Privy Council determined that the wharf owner 'intervened' in the causal chain, creating a responsibility for the fire which canceled out the liability of the ship owner.

text: In Australia the concept of remoteness, or proximity, was tested with the case of Jaensch v Coffey.[12] The wife of a policeman, Mrs Coffey suffered a nervous shock injury from the aftermath of a motor vehicle collision although she was not actually at the scene at the time of the collision. The court upheld that, in addition to it being reasonably foreseeable that his wife might suffer such an injury, it required that there be sufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant who caused the collision. Here there was sufficient causal proximity. See also Kavanagh v Akhtar,[32] Imbree v McNeilly,[33] and Tame v NSW.[11]

text: Injury[edit]

text: Even though there is breach of duty, and the cause of some injury to the defendant, a plaintiff may not recover unless he can prove that the defendant's breach caused a pecuniary injury. This should not be mistaken with the requirements that a plaintiff prove harm to recover. As a general rule, a plaintiff can only rely on a legal remedy to the point that he proves that he suffered a loss; it was reasonably foreseeable. It means something more than pecuniary loss is a necessary element of the plaintiff's case in negligence. When damages are not a necessary element, a plaintiff can win his case without showing that he suffered any loss; he would be entitled to nominal damages and any other damages according to proof. (See Constantine v Imperial Hotels Ltd [1944] KB]).

text: Negligence is different in that the plaintiff must prove his loss, and a particular kind of loss, to recover. In some cases, a defendant may not dispute the loss, but the requirement is significant in cases where a defendant cannot deny his negligence, but the plaintiff suffered no loss as a result. If the plaintiff can prove pecuniary loss, then he can also obtain damages for non-pecuniary injuries, such as emotional distress.

text: The requirement of pecuniary loss can be shown in a number of ways. A plaintiff who is physically injured by allegedly negligent conduct may show that he had to pay a medical bill. If his property is damaged, he could show the income lost because he could not use it, the cost to repair it, although he could only recover for one of these things.

text: The damage may be physical, purely economic, both physical and economic (loss of earnings following a personal injury,[34]) or reputational (in a defamation case).

text: In English law, the right to claim for purely economic loss is limited to a number of 'special' and clearly defined circumstances, often related to the nature of the duty to the plaintiff as between clients and lawyers, financial advisers, and other professions where money is central to the consultative services.

text: Emotional distress has been recognized as an actionable tort. Generally, emotional distress damages had to be parasitic. That is, the plaintiff could recover for emotional distress caused by injury, but only if it accompanied a physical or pecuniary injury.

text: A claimant who has suffered only emotional distress and no pecuniary loss would not recover for negligence. However, courts have recently allowed recovery for a plaintiff to recover for purely emotional distress under certain circumstances. The state courts of California allowed recovery for emotional distress alone – even in the absence of any physical injury, when the defendant physically injures a relative of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff witnesses it.[35]

text: The eggshell skull rule is a legal doctrine upheld in some tort law systems, which holds that a tortfeasor is liable for the full extent of damage caused, even where the extent of the damage is due to the unforeseen frailty of the claimant. The eggshell skull rule was recently maintained in Australia in the case of Kavanagh v Akhtar.[32]

text: Damages[edit]

text: Damages place a monetary value on the harm done, following the principle of restitutio in integrum (Latin for "restoration to the original condition"). Thus, for most purposes connected with the quantification of damages, the degree of culpability in the breach of the duty of care is irrelevant. Once the breach of the duty is established, the only requirement is to compensate the victim.

text: One of the main tests that is posed when deliberating whether a claimant is entitled to compensation for a tort, is the "reasonable person".[36] The test is self-explanatory: would a reasonable person (as determined by a judge or jury), under the given circumstances, have done what the defendant did to cause the injury in question; or, in other words, would a reasonable person, acting reasonably, have engaged in similar conduct when compared to the one whose actions caused the injury in question? Simple as the "reasonable person" test sounds, it is very complicated. It is a risky test because it involves the opinion of either the judge or the jury that can be based on limited facts. However, as vague as the "reasonable person" test seems, it is extremely important in deciding whether or not a plaintiff is entitled to compensation for a negligence tort.

text: Damages are compensatory in nature. Compensatory damages addresses a plaintiff/claimant's losses (in cases involving physical or mental injury the amount awarded also compensates for pain and suffering). The award should make the plaintiff whole, sufficient to put the plaintiff back in the position he or she was before Defendant's negligent act. Anything more would unlawfully permit a plaintiff to profit from the tort.

text: There are also two other general principles relating to damages. Firstly, the award of damages should take place in the form of a single lump sum payment. Therefore, a defendant should not be required to make periodic payments (however some statutes give exceptions for this). Secondly, the Court is not concerned with how the plaintiff uses the award of damages. For example, if a plaintiff is awarded $100,000 for physical harm, the plaintiff is not required to spend this money on medical bills to restore them to their original position - they can spend this money any way they want.[37]

text:
Special damages - quantifiable dollar losses suffered from the date of defendant's negligent act (the tort) up to a specified time (proven at trial). Special damage examples include lost wages, medical bills, and damage to property such as one's car.
General damages - these are damages that are not quantified in monetary terms (e.g., there's no invoice or receipt as there would be to prove special damages). A general damage example is an amount for the pain and suffering one experiences from a car collision. Lastly, where the plaintiff proves only minimal loss or damage, or the court or jury is unable to quantify the losses, the court or jury may award nominal damages.
Punitive damages - Punitive damages are to punish a defendant, rather than to compensate plaintiffs, in negligence cases. In most jurisdictions punitive damages are recoverable in a negligence action, but only if the plaintiff shows that the defendant’s conduct was more than ordinary negligence (i.e., wanton and willful or reckless).
Aggravated damages - In contrast to exemplary damages, compensation are given to the plaintiff when the harm is aggravated by the defendant's conduct. For example, the manner of this wrongful act increased the injury by subjecting the plaintiff to humiliation, insult.[38]

text: Procedure in the United States[edit]

text: The United States generally recognizes four elements to a negligence action: duty, breach, proximate causation and injury.[39] A plaintiff who makes a negligence claim must prove all four elements of negligence in order to win his or her case.[40] Therefore, if it is highly unlikely that the plaintiff can prove one of the elements, the defendant may request judicial resolution early on, to prevent the case from going to a jury. This can be by way of a demurrer, motion to dismiss, or motion for summary judgment.[41]

text: The elements allow a defendant to test a plaintiff's accusations before trial, as well as providing a guide to the finder of fact at trial (the judge in a bench trial, or jury in a jury trial) to decide whether the defendant is or is not liable. Whether the case is resolved with or without trial again depends heavily on the particular facts of the case, and the ability of the parties to frame the issues to the court. The duty and causation elements in particular give the court the greatest opportunity to take the case from the jury, because they directly involve questions of policy.[42] The court can find that regardless of any disputed facts, the case may be resolved as a matter of law from undisputed facts because as a matter of law the defendant cannot be legally responsible for the plaintiff's injury under a theory of negligence.[42]

text: On appeal, depending on the disposition of the case and the question on appeal, the court reviewing a trial court's determination that the defendant was negligent will analyze at least one of the elements of the cause of action to determine if it is properly supported by the facts and law. For example, in an appeal from a final judgment after a jury verdict, the appellate court will review the record to verify that the jury was properly instructed on each contested element, and that the record shows sufficient evidence for the jury's findings. On an appeal from a dismissal or judgment against the plaintiff without trial, the court will review de novo whether the court below properly found that the plaintiff could not prove any or all of his or her case.[43]