As pedestrians exited at the close of an arts and crafts show, Jason Davis, an employer of the show's producer, stood near the exit. Suddenly and without warning, Davis turned around and collided with Yvonne Esposito, an 80-year-old woman. Esposito was knocked to the ground, fracturing her hip. After hip replacement surgery, she was left with a permanent physical impairment. Esposito filed suit in a federal district court against Davis and others, alleging negligence.
1. What are the factors that indicate whether Davis owed Esposito a duty of care?
2. What do those factors indicate in these circumstances?
Discuss the tort of negligence and how it applies to our facts.
Discuss the duty of storeowner to protect customers from harm.
In tort law, the duty of care is a legal obligation requiring an individual to exercise reasonable care when performing acts that could potentially harm others. It is the primary consideration when determining if a claim of negligence exists. If a duty of care exists and is found to be breached, an individual may be subject to liability in tort. Duty of care is the formalization of the 'social contract' an individual has toward others in society. Duty of care is often developed through common law although this is not actually a requirement.
In this particular case, the primary factors determining if a duty of care exists are found within the predominant definition of negligence as it applies to common ...
The duty of care is a legal obligation requiring an individual to exercise reasonable care. This case study is presented in the format of the laws that applied in the affected state at the time of the case.