ARGUMENT
I. DID CHARLIE ACT NEGLIGENTLY TOWARD DENNIS? DOES CHARLIE EVEN OWE A DUTY TO DENNIS?
Charlie did not act negligently toward Dennis. In order for Charlie to be convicted of acting negligently, it must be shown that Charlie owed a duty to Dennis. In order to prove that Charlie owed no duty to Dennis, the law from 6 Witkin, Summary 10th (2005) Torts, § 1018, p. 289 can be used. The extent of the defendant’s duty does not exist, because the plaintiff was aware of the foreseeable risk just as well as the defendant is. Both of them were aware that the pavement was damaged, as the damage was due to Charlie and Dennis while filming their own movie. This fact implies that Dennis had knowledge about the damage done to the pavement. If anything, Charlie was less aware of the foreseeable risk as he had polled the bar before giving Dennis the green light to use the door. This is further explained by the Negligence law of California. Not only does the plaintiff need to prove that a duty exists, but also that there was a clear breach of duty. The most relevant part of this law is as follows: “one's general duty of care includes the duty not to place another person in a situation in which …show more content…
Charlie has no foreseeable risk for Dennis at the time of the incident, as he had asked multiple people in the bar to confirm the rumor that was heard from Deandra “Sweet Dee” Reynolds as well as a few others, such as, two co-workers. By asking people who worked at the establishment, who should know about the safety of the building, Charlie relieves himself of negligent conduct. Regardless, Dennis did know that the pavement could have been fixed, or still damaged. Because duty is reliant on foreseeability of risk, which Dennis would have the knowledge of the foreseeability of risk of going out the back door, Charles has no duty towards
I. DID CHARLIE ACT NEGLIGENTLY TOWARD DENNIS? DOES CHARLIE EVEN OWE A DUTY TO DENNIS?
Charlie did not act negligently toward Dennis. In order for Charlie to be convicted of acting negligently, it must be shown that Charlie owed a duty to Dennis. In order to prove that Charlie owed no duty to Dennis, the law from 6 Witkin, Summary 10th (2005) Torts, § 1018, p. 289 can be used. The extent of the defendant’s duty does not exist, because the plaintiff was aware of the foreseeable risk just as well as the defendant is. Both of them were aware that the pavement was damaged, as the damage was due to Charlie and Dennis while filming their own movie. This fact implies that Dennis had knowledge about the damage done to the pavement. If anything, Charlie was less aware of the foreseeable risk as he had polled the bar before giving Dennis the green light to use the door. This is further explained by the Negligence law of California. Not only does the plaintiff need to prove that a duty exists, but also that there was a clear breach of duty. The most relevant part of this law is as follows: “one's general duty of care includes the duty not to place another person in a situation in which …show more content…
Charlie has no foreseeable risk for Dennis at the time of the incident, as he had asked multiple people in the bar to confirm the rumor that was heard from Deandra “Sweet Dee” Reynolds as well as a few others, such as, two co-workers. By asking people who worked at the establishment, who should know about the safety of the building, Charlie relieves himself of negligent conduct. Regardless, Dennis did know that the pavement could have been fixed, or still damaged. Because duty is reliant on foreseeability of risk, which Dennis would have the knowledge of the foreseeability of risk of going out the back door, Charles has no duty towards