Seattle Restaurant Legal Analysis

Legal Analysis

Andy owned a restaurant in Seattle. His business is very good, so he is looking to expand the restaurant. He has been in negotiations with Barb to lease the space next door to expand his restaurant into. Andy invites Barb to lunch at his restaurant to sign a year’s lease. Charlie, a competitor of Andy, hears of the expansion. Charlie sneaks into Andy’s restaurant. Moments after Andy and Barb sign the lease, Charlie pours gasoline in the bathroom and lights it on fire. Andy, Barb, Charlie and the lease all get out alive, but Barb is trampled in the rush to get out and suffers a broken leg. Unfortunately, the entire restaurant is destroyed. Please address the following questions in IRAC format: (Hint: There are contract and tort issues in the case, and more than one theory of recovery in some questions.) Do not address any criminal violations.

Issue: Does Andy have a cause of action against Charlie?

Rule: Conversion – any act that deprives an owner of personal property.

Analysis: By pouring gasoline in the restaurant’s bathroom, lighting it and causing its destruction, Charley deprived Andy of his personal property.

Conclusion: Andy can sue Charley for a conversion.

Issue: Does Barb have a cause of action against Charlie for her broken leg?

Rule: Injury and Damages – there must be legally recognized harms and injuries resulting from wrongful acts.

Analysis: Barb had broken her leg, which is a legally recognized injury, due to the wrongdoing of Charley, lighting Andy’s restaurant on fire and causing a commotion.

Conclusion: Charley is liable for the injuries of Barb.

Issue: Does Barb have a cause of action against Andy for her broken leg?

Rule: Negligence:

1. Duty: the existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care;

2. Breach: a failure to exercise reasonable care;

3. Causation: injury caused by negligent action;

4. Legally recognized harm occurred.

Analysis: Negligence:

1. Duty: Andy as the owner of the...