100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 8 pages.
conduct fell below the standard of conduct to which she should conform for her own protection. Pam can argue that she was panicked, as she had just been robbed at gunpoint. She was trying to reach a phone to call 9-1-1 so the police can apprehend the robber. Because she was the victim ofa violent crime, Pam will argue that running did not fall below the standard of care she owed herself. There is no comparative negligence by Pam.Conclusion6
Clouse 6931 Pg 7Diner is liable for Pam’s broken arm, for general and special damages.Exacerbations of her injuries due to Wayne’s refusal to allow her to use Diner’s phone tocall 9-1-1-.Vicarious LiabilityAn employer is liable for the acts or refusals to act of its employees that are performed while in the course and scope of the employment.Wayne works for Diner. This shows and employee/employer relationship between Wayne and Diner. Wayne refused to let Pam use the Diner’s phone to call 9-1-1 for help. He stated the policy limited phone usage to employees making business related calls and strictly prohibited customersfrom using it. Wayne thought he was following the policy of the Diner, even though he was incorrect. He was acting within the course and scope of his duties when he refused to let Pam usethe phone to call 9-1-1.Diner will be held vicariously liable for Wayne’s negligence.NegligenceDuty- Omission to ActA defendant generally has no obligation or duty to act to prevent harm to plaintiff unless a special relationship exists between plaintiff and defendant, or where defendant voluntarily undertakes aid to plaintiff. Where such duty to aid plaintiff exists, defendant must act as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances to avoid harm to plaintiff.Wayne will claim there was not special relationship between Pam and Wayne or Pam and Diner. Pam was a stranger to Wayne and Diner. There was no special relationship and no on volunteeredto aid Pam. Pam can argue that where a defendant is responsible for plaintiff’s injury he has a duty to go to plaintiff’s aid and to exercise reasonable care in doing so. Pam was robbed in Diner’s parking lot. Pam also sustained a broken arm in defendant’s parking lot due to defendant’s negligence. Wayne, as Diner’s employee, had a duty to provide aid to Pam. He failed to do so when he refused to let her call 9-1-1.BreachDefined Supra. 7
Clouse 6931 Pg 8Wayne owed pam a duty to render aid to her. Wayne refused to do so, breaching his duty. Wayne misstated the policy, which did allow for anyone to use the phone in an emergency. Wayne refused to allow Pam to use the phone, which breached his duty to her too.Wayne breached his duty of care owed to Pam. Actual CauseDefined supra. “But for” Wayne’s failure to let Pam use the phone, the robber would have been apprehended. Another customer did call 9-1-1 from his cell phone. The police arrived shortly after. Police and paramedics arrived promptly after the call. The robber was not apprehended. Pam was able to receive medical attention because someone else called for her. Wayne’s refusal to allow Pam to use the Diner’s phone was did not exacerbate Pam’s injuries.ConclusionAlthough Wayne breached his duty of care to Pam, she was able to get prompt medical care. Wayne’s actions did not exacerbate Pam’s injuries.8