Negligence questions reward element-by-element analysis. Keep duty, breach, actual causation, proximate causation, damages, and defenses separate even when the facts invite an intuitive result.
Practice in Testify →Identify the duty and the conduct that allegedly breached it. Then test factual causation before asking whether the type of harm and plaintiff fall within the scope of foreseeable risk. Confirm actual damages and only then analyze plaintiff-fault defenses.
A common mistake is using foreseeability to answer every element. Foreseeability can matter to duty and proximate cause, but actual cause still requires its own analysis. Another trap is treating negligence per se as automatic liability without checking the statute, protected class, type of harm, and jurisdictional treatment.
Write D-B-C-C-D across the top: duty, breach, cause in fact, proximate cause, damages. Add defenses only after the prima facie case. This prevents a strong fact on one element from doing work that belongs to another.
Law school exams often contain enough facts to argue both sides of breach and proximate cause. Use the element structure to organize competing arguments instead of writing one undifferentiated fairness discussion.
For bar review, mix negligence with premises liability, vicarious liability, products, and intentional torts so you must identify the correct theory before applying the element checklist.