Tort of Negligence

Unit - 2 Assignment

Tort of Negligence

Juan Ujueta

Kaplan University

LS311: Business Law I

Professor: James Starcher

September 6, 2011

Tort of Negligence

In this case Davis’s sudden and without warning move created a risk that although foreseeable and preventable, led to serious consequences. A reasonable person under the same circumstances would have refrained from making such abruptly, and sudden turns at a crowded exit with moving pedestrians, thus anticipating the risk of a possible collision with another pedestrian (Miller, 2008). The fact that Esposita suffered an injury as a result of Davis carelessly sudden move not only makes him negligent, but it is also a failure on Davis part to a required duty of care. Therefore, Davis owed a duty of care not only to Esposita, but also to pedestrians in general exiting the building. Davis breached that duty of care. Espostia suffered legally recognizable injuries when Davis fails to comply with the duty to exercise reasonable care (Miller, 2008).

These factors indicate that Esposita has suffered legally recognizable injuries, and is entitled to receive compensation for the damages by filing a lawsuit against Davis. The facts also indicate that Davis is liable in a tort by causation in fact, since no injury would have occurred to Esposita, had Davis been more careful, and looked around before turning. The tort also possesses proximate cause, since the connection between Davis carelessness act, and the Esposita’s injury is strong enough to justify imposing liability. In the same way Davis could be sued under the res ipsa loquitur, because the injury would never have occurred in the absence of Davis negligence (Miller, 2008).

Davis could have a valid defense against a lawsuit of negligence for assumption of risk under the following circumstances; if Esposita had a prior medical condition in which she underwent hip surgery, and was warned by a physician to avoid excessive walking,...