Hiring security to prevent crime pam would not have

This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 8 pages.

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. Proximate Causation 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 negligence. 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 robber’s conduct. Thus, the robber’s conduct is not a superseding cause. Therefore, Diner was the proximate cause of Pam's injuries. General Damages 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
Legal Writing Assignment #9 security to, its patrons. As a result of Diner’s negligence, Pam was a victim of a robbery. However, there are no facts to support that Pam suffered an unreasonable risk of harm which causes physical injury. Therefore, Pam will not be able to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Assumption of Risk One, who assumes the risk when she has knowledge, comprehension and an appreciation of the danger and voluntarily elects to encounter it, cannot recover for injuries or damages resulting from defendant’s negligence. Since Diner did not post any warnings of the potential criminal activity of auto burglaries or of any other crimes, Pam did not have any knowledge or comprehension of the danger. Further, Pam did not know of the previous burglaries that occurred in the past year. Since Pam had no knowledge of the prior crimes, she did not voluntarily elect to encounter the robbery. Therefore, Pam did not knowingly and voluntarily assume the risk. Therefore, assumption of the risk is not a valid defense.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture