Theory: Good-For-You was negligent in failing to maintain a well-lit parking lot which led to Jones’ injury.
Issue: Will Jones be able to make a prima facie case against Good-For-You.
Duty: Yes, the negligent conduct created a substantial factor in causing the injury. There is a foreseeable risk of people getting into accidents if there are no lights; cars could hit people; cars could hit cars, etc. The premises owner knew of the lights being out because of the storm, therefore they should have done something more about the situation.
Standard of Care: The standard of care that should be upheld is that of a reasonable premises owner.
Breach: Good-For- You did breach their standard of care to Ms. Jones, and all of their customers,
Issue: Will Jones be able to make a prima facie case against Good-For-You.
Duty: Yes, the negligent conduct created a substantial factor in causing the injury. There is a foreseeable risk of people getting into accidents if there are no lights; cars could hit people; cars could hit cars, etc. The premises owner knew of the lights being out because of the storm, therefore they should have done something more about the situation.
Standard of Care: The standard of care that should be upheld is that of a reasonable premises owner.
Breach: Good-For- You did breach their standard of care to Ms. Jones, and all of their customers,