Here pam did not know that there had been a history

Here, Pam did not know that there had been a history of criminal activity in the parking lot at Diner’s
prior to her robbery.
Therefore, she did not assume the risk and this defense will fail.
Thus, the outcome will be that Pam will recover losses for her purse and cell phone but will not be able
to recover for emotional distress resulting from the robbery.
2.) Her broken arm?
NEGLIGENCE
Defined Supra.
SPECIAL DUTY- LANDOWNER
Defined and discussed supra.
BUSINESS INVITEE
Defined Supra
Here, Pam was at Diner’s to eat. Pam was parked inside of Diner’s parking lot and was attempting to
cross the parking lot; thus Pam was a business invitee on Diner’s land. Diner owes a duty to its
business invitees to make reasonable inspections and to warn of and make safe known dangers.
Therefore, Pam is an business invitee.
BREACH
Defined Supra
Here, Diner knew about the pothole in its parking lot. Diner had received numerous complaints, many
complaints from drivers who had not seen the pothole. However, it is foreseeable that one not paying
attention may hurt himself and thus the pothole posed an unreasonable risk of harm to persons crossing
the parking lot.
Therefore, Diner breached its duty by not fixing the pothole.
ACTUAL CAUSATION
4

Legal Writing Assignment 9
Franklin #8192
Defined Supra.
But for Diner’s failure to cover the pothole Pam would not have tripped and injured her arm.
Therefore, Diner’s failure to fix the pothole was the actual cause of her injury.
PROXIMATE CAUSATION
Defined Supra
Here, Diner’s failure to cover the pothole was a direct and foreseeable cause of Pam’s injuries.
Thus, Diner was the proximate cause of Pam’s injuries.
DAMAGES
GENERAL
Defined Supra
Therefore. Pam will recover general damages for her pain and suffering related to her broken arm.
SPECIAL
Defined supra
Here, Pam may recover special damages such as medical expenses and any wages she may lose due to
her broken arm.
DEFENSES
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Defined supra.
Here, Diner will assert that Pam should have seen the large pothole, and that her negligence for failing
to notice the pothole contributed to her injury. The court is likely to find that she should have seen the
large pothole and that she did contribute to her own injury.
Thus, if the court finds Pam contributed to her own negligence she will be barred from recovery.
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
Damages are weighed according to blameworthiness.
5

Legal Writing Assignment 9
Franklin #8192
Here, if the court finds that Pam contributed to her injury she will be allowed recovery minus the
percentage that she was negligent in a jurisdiction that follows the pure system. In a partial system, she
will only be allowed recovery if she is 50% or less at fault.
Therefore, it is likely that the court will reduce Pam’s damages based on a percentage that she was
negligent.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Defined supra.