Did the defendant owe the plaintiff a legal duty of reasonable care?
這一課問的是：D 是否對 P 負有「合理注意」的法律義務 —— 過失四要件的第一關。
ActorActObjectStandardConsequence
① Visual Scene
Negligence: Duty
本課的視覺化圖 — 同一套五色 Visual Grammar 表達核心結構。
Notice the diagram uses the same five-role colour grammar — Actor, Act, Object, Standard, Consequence.
② Core Terms
7 words you must own
本課術語。點擊卡片翻面看法律含義。
Tap a card to flip it.
③ Issue Meaning
What does this topic ask?
這一課問的是：D 是否對 P 負有「合理注意」的法律義務 —— 過失四要件的第一關。
"Negligence: Duty" really asks: Did the defendant owe the plaintiff a legal duty of reasonable care?
Trigger words 觸發詞 — see these, think "Negligence: Duty":
should have foreseenowed a dutyzone of dangerreasonable carecarelessrisk of harm
④ Expression Bank
How lawyers say it
不只是認識單詞，而是知道律師怎麼把它說出來。讀出聲音。
⑤ Rule Sentence
One exam-ready rule
先看 Core（核心要件），再切到 Full（完整考試句）。
A defendant owes a duty of reasonable care to all foreseeable plaintiffs — persons within the zone of danger created by the defendant's conduct.; the care required is that of a reasonable person under the circumstances, and special standards apply to children, professionals, and common carriers.
Source: Legal English for U.S. Law · Torts Production Standard v1.0
⑥ Sentence Anatomy
Five colored parts — always
把規則句拆成 5 個彩色零件 — 同一套顏色，貫穿 16 科每一節 lesson。
Actor 行為人
a defendant
可能造成風險的人
Act 行為
conduct that creates a risk of harm
製造風險之行為
Object 對象
all foreseeable plaintiffs · the zone of danger
可預見之原告 / 危險範圍內之人
Standard 法律標準
reasonable foreseeability · reasonable-person standard
可預見性 / 理性人標準
Consequence 後果
a duty of reasonable care is owed
負合理注意義務
同一套五個零件在 16 科每一句 rule 裡重複出現。
⑦ Casebook Snapshot
How U.S. courts teach this
美國法學院用案例教學。每節課看一個經典案例，只看法官最核心的 holding。
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
New York Court of Appeals, 1928 · the famous fireworks-on-the-platform case
Simplified Holding
A defendant owes a duty only to plaintiffs within the foreseeable zone of danger; there is no liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff, because the scope of the duty is defined by the risk a reasonable person would perceive.
Why It Matters Here
Duty is not owed to the whole world. It runs only to the people a reasonable defendant could foresee being harmed.
Duty 不對所有人負；只對「理性人能預見會受傷害」的人負。
This is a simplified statement of the court's holding, written for study — not a quotation.
⑧ Mini IRAC
Your first legal analysis
用 IRAC 四步做最小法律分析。選出空格裡正確的詞。
Issue 法律問題
Did D, a driver, owe a duty of care to P, a pedestrian nearby, when D drove negligently?
Rule 規則
A defendant owes a duty of reasonable care to all foreseeable plaintiffs within the zone of danger created by the conduct.
Application 適用
D drove well above the speed limit on a busy street where pedestrians regularly cross. Because a defendant owes a duty of reasonable care to every foreseeable plaintiff in the zone of danger, the fact that of careless driving means P fell within the zone of danger D created.
Conclusion 結論
Therefore, D owed P a duty of reasonable care.
Application formula: Because [rule], the fact that [legalized fact] means [legal significance]. Always say what the fact means in law.
⑨ Common Mistakes
Where Chinese learners slip
這些是中文母語學習者最常踩的坑。
有 duty 就等於 D 有過失。
Duty is only step 1; breach is the next question.
Duty 是第一步；D 是否「沒做到」是下一個要件 breach。
D 對「所有人」都負義務。
Duty runs only to foreseeable plaintiffs in the zone of danger.
義務只及於「可預見的原告」，即落在危險範圍內的人。
注意標準看 D 自己認為怎樣才算謹慎。
The standard is objective — the reasonable person, not D.
standard 是客觀的「理性人」標準。
人人都用同一個 reasonable person 標準。
Children, professionals, common carriers have special standards.
兒童、專業人士、公共承運人等有特殊標準。
⑩ MBE Check
One quick multiple-choice check
用一道選擇題檢查你是否抓住了核心規則。
A railway worker negligently dislodges a package a passenger is carrying. The package secretly contains fireworks; the blast topples scales far down the platform and injures P, who was standing well away. Did the worker owe P a duty of care?
⑪ Mini Essay
Write one IRAC paragraph
寫一段 IRAC。寫完後再展開 model answer 對照。
Facts
D let his large dog run off its leash in a crowded public park where children play. The dog ran into P, a small child walking on the path, and knocked her down.
Call
Did D owe P a duty of reasonable care?
Your Task
Write one short IRAC paragraph — Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion.
Issue
The issue is whether the facts satisfy the rule for Negligence: Duty.
Rule
A defendant owes a duty of reasonable care to all foreseeable plaintiffs — persons within the zone of danger created by the defendant's conduct.
Application
D let a large dog run loose in a crowded park used by children. Because a duty of reasonable care is owed to every foreseeable plaintiff in the zone of danger, the fact that a child on the path is an obviously foreseeable person to be knocked down by an unleashed dog means P was within the zone of danger D created.
