Thusdinerwillbevicariouslyliableforanynegligenceofwayn

Thus, Diner will be vicariously liable for any negligence of Wayne.
Negligence
Duty – Omission to Act
Under general negligence principles, a defendant generally has no affirmative duty to act
to prevent harm to plaintiff unless a special relationship exists between plaintiff and defendant
or where defendant voluntarily undertakes to aid plaintiff.  Where such duty to aid plaintiff
exists, defendant must act as a reasonably prudent person to avoid harm to plaintiff.
Wayne will assert that there was no special relationship between Pam and either Wayne or Diner.
Pam was a stranger to Wayne and Diner.  Thus, no special relationship existed between Wayne
and Pam.  Further, Wayne did not voluntarily undertake to aid Pam, as further evidenced by
Wayne’s refusal to allow Pam to use the phone.
However, where a defendant is responsible for plaintiff’s injury or peril he has a duty to go to
plaintiff’s aid and to exercise reasonable care in doing so.  As argued above, Pam was robbed in
Diner’s parking lot and sustained a broken arm as a result of Diner’s negligence.
Therefore, Wayne, as Diner’s employee, has a duty to provide aid to Pam.
Breach

Legal Writing Assignment #9
Defined supra.
Since Wayne owed Pam a duty to render aid to her, Wayne’s refusal to allow Pam to use the
phone was a breach of that duty. Moreover, Wayne misstated Diner’s policy to Pam. Instead of
limiting phone use to business-related calls and strictly prohibiting customer calls, Diner’s policy
actually allowed an exception for emergencies. Thus, not only did Wayne fail to provide aid to
Pam, in such failure he misstated and misapplied Diner’s phone policy, resulting in a further
breach of duty to Pam.
Therefore, Wayne breached his duty of care owed to Pam.
Actual Cause
Pam will argue that “but for” Wayne’s failure to allow Pam to use the phone, the robber would
not have escaped. However, when Wayne refused to allow Pam to use the phone, a patron at the
Diner promptly called 911 on his own cellular phone. The police arrived shortly thereafter.
Since a patron called within seconds of Wayne’s refusal to allow Pam to use the phone the robber
would never have been apprehended either way. Further, the patron’s call resulted in Pam
receiving immediate medical treatment.
Therefore, Wayne’s failure to allow Pam the use of Diner’s phone did not exacerbate Pam’s
injuries.