100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 8 pages.
11. Legal Writing Law 604, Assignment # 9, Bryant, # 8277Pam v. Diner1.The loss of her purse, her cellular phone, and her emotional distress as a result of the robbery? NegligenceRequire a showing a duty was owed, the duty was breached, which the actual and proximate cause of damage.Here, Pam’s drove to Diner, a local restaurant. When she got out of her car in Diner’s parking lot,she was robbed at gunpoint by an unknown assailant, who took her purse and her cellular phone. Whereas the dinner owes a duty to make reasonable inspection of dangers and ensure toProtect against crimes and to warn customers against any known dangers. Therefore, the diner’s negligence without doing so becomes the actual and proximate cause of Pam’s loss of her purse and cell phone.Thus, the diner would be liable for negligence.General DutyThe duty to conduct oneself as reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances.Here, the Diner known as a business owner has a general duty of care to exercise due care in preventing harm to others. However, the Diner installed two video cameras up in the parking lot, but failed to hire security guards to patrol the parking lot, never posted signs to alert customers tobe aware due to recent robberies.Thus, Diner would be liable for general duty.Special Duty – Land Occupier – InviteeSpecial duty appears in circumstance that involves a land occupier. Landowner the invitee to reasonably inspect, correct or warn against any type of danger. Invitee becomes one that enter theland with the owner’s permission as to the reason related to the activity. Land occupier occurs once a person comes into the land of another.Here, Pam was an invitee of the Diner. Whereby, the Diner has a duty to make reasonable inspections of the parking lot and correct or warn of any kind of criminal activity in the parking lot. Therefore, Pam was robbed at gunpoint. However, it was later discovered that other customers were victims of a crime in the Diner’s parking lot. Diner can argue they put two video cameras in the lot, but failed to hire security guards to patrol the parking lot.
21. Legal Writing Law 604, Assignment # 9, Bryant, # 8277Thus, Diner would be liable for special duty.BreachThe failure to conduct oneself as a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances.Here, the Diner breaches this duty once they failed to provide the reasonable standard of care. While providing video cameras in the lot to protect their customers, they failed to hire security care as well as a duty to inspect, discover and correct warn – owed to all foreseeable users, such as this case diner’s customers. However, the Diner was aware of prior robberies and incidents occurred on the property. Therefore, the Diner’s action is considered unreasonable ways, regards to safety of others. As a result, they breached its duty to protect their customers from known criminal activities as well as failure to protect them by refusing to hire security. Furthermore, by