Davis vs. Esposito

An injury resulted because Davis turned and collided with Esposito and this is referred to as the tort of negligence. Consequently, Ms. Esposito was left with a lifelong physical impairment after being knocked to the ground by Mr. Davis. Davis’s actions may have been unintentional but the incident was still predictable. Although his actions were unforeseeable and unintentional, he is now liable under the tort of negligence to provide remedies for Esposito’s injury.

The three basic elements that indicates that Davis owned Esposito a duty of care are; The likelihood that his behavior will harm others, taken with the seriousness of the injury if it happens, and balanced against the cost of the precaution he must take to avoid the risk. If the outcome of the likelihood of the injury exceeds the burden of the precautions, the risk is unreasonable and the failure to take precautions is negligence.

Torts are legal wrongs that one party suffers at the hands of another. Negligence is a form of tort which evolved because some types of loss or damage occur between parties that have no contract between them and therefore there is nothing for one party to sue the other over. This applies to our facts because by Davis being careless or careful performs an injury occurred this is deemed as a breach of duty of care.

The elements which constitute a negligent tort are the following: a person must owe a duty or service to the victim in question; the individual who owes the duty must violate the promise or obligation; an injury then must arise because of that specific violation; and the injury causes must have been reasonably foreseeable as a result of the person's negligent actions.

“There are many instances in which criminal against patrons are clearly foreseeable. In these cases, business owners would be held to a higher standard of care. In case they neglect this duty, and a customer is injured, there would likely be a premises liability claim and the business owner...