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?NEGLIGENCEDefined Supra.SPECIAL DUTY- LANDOWNER Defined and discussed supra. BUSINESS INVITEEDefined SupraHere, 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.BREACHDefined SupraHere, 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 CAUSATION4
Legal Writing Assignment 9Franklin #8192Defined 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 CAUSATIONDefined SupraHere, 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. DAMAGESGENERALDefined SupraTherefore. Pam will recover general damages for her pain and suffering related to her broken arm. SPECIALDefined supraHere, Pam may recover special damages such as medical expenses and any wages she may lose due to her broken arm. DEFENSESCONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCEDefined 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 NEGLIGENCEDamages are weighed according to blameworthiness. 5
Legal Writing Assignment 9Franklin #8192Here, 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, shewill 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 RISKDefined supra.