100%(6)6 out of 6 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 5 pages.
Pam will argue that it up to Diner to address the complaints that were made by the patrons who was driving though the pothole and assume that if someone walking could fall into the pothole if they didn’t fix it. Pam will say that Diner owed a duty of care to all of its patrons to make sure that the parking was safe and would cause no harm or injuries to any of their patrons who came to park there and that it would be foreseeable that not fixing the pothole would cause someone to get hurt. Thus, Diner was the proximate cause of Pam’s injuries.DamagesGeneral DamagesPam will recover for all pain and suffering from her broken arm.Special DamagesSpecial damages are those which are indirect results of an injury, which do not necessarily result from such an injury. They are out-of-pocket costs directly resulting from a breach of contract, negligence or another wrongful act by the defendant.Pam should be able to recover for medical bills, loss of wages and any other out of pockets money incurred from her broken arm.Contributory NegligenceThe negligence of a person which, while not being the primary cause of a tort, nevertheless combined with the act or omission of the primary defendant to cause the tort, and without which the tort would not have occurred.3
Legal Writing 604Assignment #9Myles 8019Diner will argue that Pam ran though the parking lot caused her to trip and fall into the pothole breaking her own arm because the pothole was visible. This shows that Pam contributed to her own injury. Pam will argue that she was panicked and trying to call for the police in order to catch the robberbefore he left the parking lot. Pam will argue that her conduct didn’t fall below the standard of care that a reasonable person would have used. Thus, Diner would probably be able to prove that Pam was contributory negligent.Last Clear ChanceUnder this doctrine, a negligent plaintiff can nonetheless recover if he is able to show that the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident.Pam will argue that Diner had the last clear chance to fix the large pothole in the parking lot because of the complaints that were received by them from other patrons. Diner only had to post a sign warning of the pothole.Thus, Diner had the last clear chance to prevent the injuries to Pam.Comparative NegligenceComparative negligence, or non-absolute contributory negligence outside the United States, is a partial legal defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim, based upon the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to cause the injury.