Introduction
The United States torts law allows citizens to sue for various types of negligence (Deakin, Angus, & Markesinis, 2008). Negligence can be defined as the “failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances” (Gerven, 200, p. 5). The duty of care is recognized as one of the elements of negligence and is usually concerned with the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff (Deakin, Angus, & Markesinis, 2008). The paper seeks to analyze a case study and determine whether the duty of care was owed by the plaintiff, and evaluate the different factors that indicate this circumstance.
The factors that indicate whether Davis owed Esposito a duty of care
The duty of care is determined through the evaluation of whether the defendant has an obligation not to conduct himself/herself in a manner that can be injurious to the plaintiff under all circumstances considered in the case. In the case of Davis and Esposito, a duty of care can be determined by assessing the following factors: First, it should be evaluated whether any special relationship existed between Davis and Esposito; or if the two were in a situation that requires one to exercise care according to the principles developed by case law (Gerven, 2001). For instance, pedestrians or road users are required to conduct themselves in a manner that they will not cause harm to one another. In this case, harm can be intentional or unintentional.
In the case provided the defendant caused unintentional harm to the plaintiff. Such cases are often dealt with by a section under the tort law that is referred to as negligence (Gerven, 2001). Usually, negligence is established when a person causes harm to another person as a result of carelessness (Deakin, Angus, & Markesinis, 2008).
The factors that indicate the circumstance
The first circumstance under which a duty of care is established in this case is the fact that Davis was an employee of the show’s producer. As part of the team that facilitated the show, he owed a duty of care to the show attendants due to the special relationship he had with them and the show’s producer.
A second circumstance in which Davis owed a duty of care to Esposito is established by the fact that he was standing at an exit being used by pedestrians to leave the show arena. He was required to be aware of the fact that the exit was being used by others and therefore conduct himself in a manner that will not cause harm to them. The sudden turning that caused him to collide with Esposito was an act of negligence that qualifies him for a duty of care lawsuit.
Conclusion
This paper sought to analyze a case study, and determine the factors that indicate whether a duty of care was owed, and the factors that indicate the circumstances. It has been established that a duty of care was owed due to the special relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. The defendant was an employee of the producer of the show at which the negligent act occurred. Furthermore, the defendant was standing at an exit being used by pedestrians and therefore it was expected of him not to act in a manner that would compromise their safety.
References
Deakin, S., Angus, J., & Markesinis, B. (2008). Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gerven, W. (2001). Cases, Materials and Text on National,Supranational and International Tort Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.