Negligence Analysis (against CDW)
Duty
They did not act with reasonable care like the ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person because the store did not have a warning sign regarding possible injury due to poor stocking while other stores do have warning signs. In the surveillance, it showed that an employee was walking in the same aisle before the accident happened and did look up at the shelves but continued walking because a customer needed help.
Breach
The duty to act with reasonable care was breached because of the reason above and employees should not be stocking with minimum experience and have that job after just two weeks of training concerning such a risky task. Looking at the release forms Randy filled out, he did describe Laura …show more content…
Breach
The duty to act with reasonable care was breached because of the reason above and also as the ambulance co. director said “jewelry is removed only if certain medical procedures need to be performed” and even said that in her case, it did not have to be removed so, robbery did occur during the day of the incident before she arrived at the hospital.
Actual Cause
“But for” defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care, plaintiff would not have suffered harm.
Proximate Cause
The harm was not foreseeable to the ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person because we expect medical attendants to be professional and not commit robbery to an unconscious person. …show more content…
Randy should of removed her jewelry before they took her in the ambulance.
Negligence Analysis (against Ambulance Co.)
Duty
They did not act with reasonable care like the ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person because Laura’s jewelry was not reported at the hospital safe and as soon in the store parking lot surveillance, an ambulance attendant slipped both the necklace and ring into his pocket as he was administering something to her.
Breach
The duty to act with reasonable care was breached because of the reason above and also that in her case, it did not have to be removed so, robbery did occur during the day of the incident before she arrived at the hospital. The parking lot surveillance was enough to prove robbery. Since Randy was with Laura, the ambulance crew was required to take him with them but they did not this task.
Actual Cause
“But for” defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care, plaintiff would not have suffered harm.
Proximate Cause
The harm was not foreseeable to the ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person because we expect medical attendants to be professional and not commit robbery to an unconscious
Duty
They did not act with reasonable care like the ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person because the store did not have a warning sign regarding possible injury due to poor stocking while other stores do have warning signs. In the surveillance, it showed that an employee was walking in the same aisle before the accident happened and did look up at the shelves but continued walking because a customer needed help.
Breach
The duty to act with reasonable care was breached because of the reason above and employees should not be stocking with minimum experience and have that job after just two weeks of training concerning such a risky task. Looking at the release forms Randy filled out, he did describe Laura …show more content…
Breach
The duty to act with reasonable care was breached because of the reason above and also as the ambulance co. director said “jewelry is removed only if certain medical procedures need to be performed” and even said that in her case, it did not have to be removed so, robbery did occur during the day of the incident before she arrived at the hospital.
Actual Cause
“But for” defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care, plaintiff would not have suffered harm.
Proximate Cause
The harm was not foreseeable to the ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person because we expect medical attendants to be professional and not commit robbery to an unconscious person. …show more content…
Randy should of removed her jewelry before they took her in the ambulance.
Negligence Analysis (against Ambulance Co.)
Duty
They did not act with reasonable care like the ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person because Laura’s jewelry was not reported at the hospital safe and as soon in the store parking lot surveillance, an ambulance attendant slipped both the necklace and ring into his pocket as he was administering something to her.
Breach
The duty to act with reasonable care was breached because of the reason above and also that in her case, it did not have to be removed so, robbery did occur during the day of the incident before she arrived at the hospital. The parking lot surveillance was enough to prove robbery. Since Randy was with Laura, the ambulance crew was required to take him with them but they did not this task.
Actual Cause
“But for” defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care, plaintiff would not have suffered harm.
Proximate Cause
The harm was not foreseeable to the ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person because we expect medical attendants to be professional and not commit robbery to an unconscious