v. Currie Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Issue: Is Chevron liable for negligence to Currie? Rule: Negligence: 1)existence of a legal duty to the plaintiff 2)the defendant breached the duty 3)the plaintiff was injured 4) the defendants breach of duty caused the injury. Proximate cause: An act from which an injury results as a natural, direct, uninterrupted consequence and without which the injury would not have occurred. foreseeability: reasonably anticipate that damage or injury will probably ensue from acts or omissions Application: The events took place on the property of Chevron, where they owe a legal duty to Currie. The Chevron employee breached the duty, when she saw the conflict, noticed the lack of nearby vehicle or gas container and still activated pump number one. With the use of the gas from pump number 1, Currie was doused in gasoline and set on fire. The only way Currie could be set on fire with the gasoline, is with the authorization of the Chevron attendant. Chevron agrees the events took place at a Chevron Property. The defendant did not breach the duty, she because was simply doing her duty by responding to the buzzing sound. Her training requires prompt response to authorization and was not clearly aware when she noticed the struggle between Currie and Muhammad outside. It was unreasonable to believe that the activation of the pump one, would result in Currie being doused and set on fire. The cause of the injury was made by Muhammad who doused and set fire to Currie and Currie who did not take proper care of her body. The plaintiff argues that the Chevron employee, turned looked at the struggle with Muhammad & Currie, noticed no car or gas container presence and still activated the pump number one. Conclusion: Yes Chevron was liable for negligence to Currie, because it met the requirements of negligence. Without the activation of the Chevron employee of pump number one, Muhammad would be unable to douse Currie in gasoline and set her on fire. Currie may collect compensatory damages for loss of life, emotional distress and lost wages. Currie may not seek punitive damages as no intent was found.