Soldano v O - Gary Hara Soldano v O'Daniels Statement of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Gary Hara Soldano v O’Daniels Statement of facts - We assume the telephone was not in a private office but in a position where it could be used by a patron without inconvenience to the defendant or his guests. - We also assume the call was a local one and would not result in expense. - It is urged that the alternative request of the patron from Happy Jack’s Saloon that he be all owed to use the defendant’s telephone so that he personally could make the call is again a request that the defendant do something. - There was no special relationship between the defendant and the deceased. - The bartender’s inaction negligently interfered with the plaintiff’s plea for help from a third party. - The harm to the decedent was abundantly foreseeable - The certainty of decedent’s injury is undisputed. - There is arguably a close connection between the employee’s conduct and the injury. - The employee’s conduct displayed a disregard for human life that can be characterized as morally wrong. Concise statement of the issue in the case - Setting aside the non-special relationship of the bartender and plaintiff, was the bartender, whether in complete negligence, risking involvement, or in complete disregard for human
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 2

Soldano v O - Gary Hara Soldano v O'Daniels Statement of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online