Martinez 7871/ Legal Writing 604
The fact pattern shows that Pam drove to Diner with the objective of eating there, so this defines her
as an invitee to the business.
As such, Diner owes Pam (and other patrons) the duty to advise them
of issues/harm in the parking lot, inclusive of criminal activity and their failure to prevent them.
Where did Diner go wrong? The fact pattern does not show that Diner warned clients of potential
criminal activity in the parking lot, nor did they create a solution towards such by hiring a security
guard, or walls/fences to prevent criminal activity.
Diner may argue that the presence of two security cameras in the parking lot would suffice, however
they do do anything to warn or fix the situation.
Because of this, Negligence can be asserted and Diner be assigned the cause for Pam being the
victim of a crime, Diner had more opportunities to correct the issue of robberies and criminal activity
in the parking lot.
Pam is therefore entitled to damages for her lost property and emotional distress
as a result of the crime committed onto her.
Pam V Diner - Broken Arm
Duty - Special Suty - as defined above
Breach - as defined above.
Diner has to exercise care to its patrons, invitees such as Pam.
case, the pothole had been there and aside customer complaints, the pothole had not been fixed, as
visible as it is.
Diner made no attempts to place a cone, warning, or caution tape diverting people from the pothole.
In this case, Pam was a victim of the pothole; in any circumstance; the pothole could not have been
Therefore Diner breached their duty of care and Pam should be awarded damages for her
broken arm, and emotional distress thereof.
Diner cannot assert any defenses in this case - the circumstances related to Pam, caused her to
act/run in a manner reasonable to her safety and welfare.
Pam v Diner 911 Call
Special Duty/Duty/Negligence - as defined above.
In this case, Pam asked Wayne to use the phone; Wayne provided incorrect information and acted
upon it, therefore Diner breached their duty to exercise care for their invitees.
However, in this case another patron enabled Pam to call for help.
So Pam’s damages were
stopped as she was able to get help.
Since there are no damages, Negligence becomes obsolete to further discuss in this specific matter.