hiring security to prevent crime, Pam would not have been robbed causing her purse and phone
to be stolen.
Thus, Diner is the actual cause of Pam’s injuries and damages.
Diner will argue the robber’s act of robbing Pam is a criminal act that is an intervening act and
breaks the causal chain.
However, the robber’s act is an indirect, and independent of Diner’s failure to warn, Diner knew
of previous burglaries that occurred in the past year to two other customers.
Therefore, the act of
the robber was foreseeable and thus will not sever causation to relieve Diner of liability of their
Diner will counter that it was only aware of burglaries.
The previous criminal acts related to the
theft from automobiles.
In fact, no patrons where actually harmed by the previous acts because
the criminals performed their crimes while the diners were in the restaurant eating.
Because Diner knew of previous criminal activity, which could have eventually evolved in
physical harm to their patrons they are liable for the subsequent, criminal act arising from the
Thus, the robber’s conduct is not a superseding cause.
Therefore, Diner was the proximate cause of Pam's injuries.
General damages are those damages that flow from the tort.
Plaintiff must have sustained actual
damages to person or property damage to recover.
Pam will be able to recover for the loss of her purse and her cellular phone as property damage.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Negligent infliction of emotional distress is found when a defendant owes a duty to not to subject
another to an unreasonable risk of harm, through physical impact or threat thereof, that might
foreseeably result in emotional distress and physical injury to the plaintiff.
Based on Diner’s knowledge of previous criminal activity in its parking lot, it owed a duty to
protect its customers from further crimes.
However, Diner failed to warn of, or to provide