Legal Writing 604, Assignment #9, Khan #7684.docx - Khan...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 8 pages.

Khan 7684Assignment #9Legal Writing 604Pam v. DinerNegligence #1-RobberyNegligence requires that a duty was owed, that said duty was breached, and that said breach was the actual and proximate cause of damages. Invitee-Business VisitorA person who enters by the express or implied invitation of the land occupier for some purpose related to the activities or interests of the land occupier is an invitee. A Business visitor is one who enters the land of another for the purpose connected with the business conducted upon the land.Pam drove to Diner. As Diner is a business open to the public, those who enter the land of Diner can reasonably be said to be there in order to confer a commercial benefit to Diner. Pam can reasonably be believed to have driven to Diner to patronize the business. Thus Pam was an business invitee.Diner will assert that Pam did not actually patronize Diner and could have been using the parkinglot to park and walk elsewhere. Thus Pam was not a business invitee.The facts do not speak to whether Pam intended to eat at Diner; however, Pam drove to Diner and regardless of her intent to eat there, she was on the land of Diner as a public invitee, and it is reasonable to believe she drove to diner in order to eat there. At minimum, Pam was a public invitee.Therefore Pam was a business invitee.Special Duty-Business InviteeA special duty of care is owed by the land occupier to a business invitee to inspect and discover any dangerous natural or artificial conditions or activities upon the land which may harm the invitee, and to warn invitees of such danger or to make the dangers safe.Pam drive to Diner and was on their land as an invitee. As such, Diner owes a duty of due care to Pam to inspect the land, discover any natural or artificial dangers, and to warn pam of the dangers or make them safe.Therefore, a special duty was owed to PamBreach1
Khan 7684Assignment #9Legal Writing 604A duty is breached when the defendant exposes others to an unreasonable risk of harm. Pam was robbed in the parking lot of Diner as she exited her vehicle. Other dangerous crimes had been committed in the past in the Diner parking lot and Diner knew of these crimes. When Diner failed to hire a security guard to patrol the parking lot, it breached its duty of due care to Pam.Diner will counter that although it knew of the danger of violent crime in the parking lot, it installed security cameras in order to deter crime and make the parking lot safe, thus satisfying its duty of due care. However, Pam was still robbed at gunpoint, and the cameras did not deter the crime. Further, Diner knew that other crimes had taken place in the parking lot, and by not hiring a security guard, further crimes were not deterred. In fact, Pam was robbed in the parking lot, despite the presence of cameras, thus the duty was not satisfied.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture