Knight v. Fifield

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that, traditionally, a negligence claim required proof that “the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff”
• “[W]hen asserting an ordinary negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct created a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of legally cognizable harm to the plaintiff and that the conduct in fact caused that kind of harm to the plaintiff.”
• “[W]hen asserting an ordi- nary negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct created a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of legally cognizable harm to the plaintiff and that the conduct in fact caused that kind of harm to the plaintiff.”
• “[W]hen asserting an ordi- nary negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct created a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of legally cognizable harm to the plaintiff and that the conduct in fact caused that kind of harm to the plaintiff.”
• “[T]he test for ordinary negligence may not apply if a party invokes ‘a status, a relationship, or a particular standard of conduct that creates, defines, or limits the defendant’s duty.’” (quoting Fazzolari ex rel. Fazzolari v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or. 1, 17 (1987)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).