Which of the following is NOT a requirement for establishing a breach of duty?

To establish a breach of duty in a legal context, three elements generally need to be proven. Firstly, there must be a recognized duty owed to the plaintiff. Secondly, the behavior in question must be unreasonable or negligent, demonstrating that the defendant failed to meet their obligations. Lastly, the behavior must fall short of what is owed, indicating a deviation from the established standard of care.

The requirement that intent to harm must be proven is not necessary for establishing a breach of duty in negligence cases. Negligence is typically determined by the actions of the defendant rather than their intentions. Therefore, liability can arise from careless or unreasonable behavior that causes harm, regardless of whether there was intent to cause that harm. This distinction is crucial because it allows for accountability in cases where harm occurs due to negligence rather than intentional wrongdoing. Thus, stating that intent to harm must be proven accurately identifies an aspect that is not required for establishing a breach of duty.