The collision between Davis and Esposito which resulted to an injury is referred to as the tort of negligence. The collision led to physical harm to Esposito and left her with a permanent physical impairment. This was after she was knocked down to the ground, an action that was unintentional and yet the incident could be predicted. Under the tenets of the tort of negligence, Davis is accountable for negligence and needs to provide remedies for the injuries sustained by Esposito.
A close examination of the circumstances of this case reveals that there were three basic elements which indicate that Davis owed a duty of care to Esposito. The first one is the possibility that Davis action will harm others, how serious the injury will be if it happens. This is balanced against another element, the cost of precaution which must be taken by him to avoid the risk. The other element is if the effect of the probability of the injury occurring surpasses the burden of the safety measures, the threat is unreasonable and the failure to take safety measures amounts to negligence.
A tort is a legal offense committed by person to another individual. Negligence is one of the forms of a tort. Negligence evolved since there are types of loses that occur when people are exposed to each other that bring about a lawsuit by the injured party with some remedies (Witting, 2013). In our case, Davis being careless undertakes an action that leads to injury to Esposito thereby breaching his duty of care. A tort is constituted by the following elements. One of the basic elements is that an individual must owe a duty to the victim in question (Witting, 2013). Next, the person who owes the service or duty must violate the obligation and an injury or loss must be the outcome of a specific violation. In addition, the cause of the harm must be convincingly predictable to the individual’s negligent behavior.
Store owners have a duty of care to protect patrons from harm. This is because there are many cases in which danger to patrons is foreseeable. Business owners should asses the risky situations that their customers are exposed to so that they are responsible to a higher standard of care (Storey, 2013). If it is established that the store owners neglected their duty and an injury results to a customer, there is likelihood for a premises liability claim against the store owner, who will be legally responsible for damages that came about due to his negligence.
Many states have different degrees of responsibility to store owners to people who visit their properties. This also depends on how the visiting parties are categorized. Legally there are three main categories of people who visit a business property. These are trespassers, licensees and invitees (Storey, 2013). The negligent actions of Davis to the invitee is bound to compel him to pay damages to Esposito since the injuries she suffered are due to his negligence. Ms. Esposito needs to move forward and prove that the defendant (Davis) owed her a duty of care and she must also prove that Davis breached that duty for damages to be awarded.
Storey, I. (2013).Duty of care and medical negligence. The British Journal of Anesthesia, 11 (4), 124-127.
Witting, C. (2013). Duty of Care: An Analytical Approach. Oxford. Journal of Legal Studies, 25 (1) 33-63.