Opinion ID: 1657443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: negligence & duty-risk analysis

Text: Tech's potential liability is predicated upon the concepts of fault and negligence under La.Civ.Code arts. 2315 and 2316, which make all persons responsible for damages caused by their negligence. In order to determine whether liability exists under the facts of a particular case, this Court has adopted a duty-risk analysis. [7] This analysis takes into account the conduct of each individual party and the peculiar circumstances of each case. Socorro, 579 So.2d at 938. The relevant inquiries are: (1) Was the conduct of which the plaintiff complains a cause-in-fact of the resulting harm? (2) What, if any, duties were owed by the respective parties? (3) Whether the requisite duties were breached? (4) Was the risk, and harm caused, within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached? (5) Were actual damages sustained? Socorro, 579 So.2d at 938-39 (citations omitted). If the plaintiff fails to satisfy one of the elements of duty-risk, the defendant is not liable. Because we find that Tech had no duty under the facts of this case, we pretermit discussion and consideration of the remaining elements.