Issue
Whether the landlord, Nob Hill Apartments, has a duty to provide security to residents and guests,Ryan Dolphin, from crimes committed by a third party.
Rule of Law
Walls V. Oxford Management Co., Inc: Landlords do not have to duty of provide security unless 1) there is a special relationship present 2) a special temptation is created to commit crimes on the land 3) if the crimes are foreseeable 4) when one voluntarily takes on the duty to provide security. Restatement [second] of torts 358: Licensees are social guests entitled to the landlord's liability when it comes to dangers that the landlord “knows or should know about”
Reasoning
In order for one to be considered negligent, actions that endanger another unreasonably, the defendant must have a duty, the requirement to act reasonably that arises out of relationships to people, to the plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff in this case is not a resident of the apartment where the crime was committed he would be considered an invitee, someone who allowed to be on the property but not for business purposes. According to the Restatement [second] of torts 358 these invitees are entitled to the same liability when it comes to dangers on the property as tenants are. The case presented, however, is extremely similar to wells v. Oxford Management where the court stated that the landlord doesn’t have a duty to protect against 3rd party crimes unless they are one of the exceptions listed above. Two exceptions may be applicable is the foreseeability exception and the voluntary duty taken on by the landlord. The foreseeability exception is viable considering all the crimes that occur there, however, when examining the crimes that were committed there the plaintiff was the first abduction. Thus that exception is invalid. The voluntary exception has more ground due to the fact not only are spotlights in place in the parking lot to deter crimes but also security cameras showing the landlords is making efforts to make the place more secure. The sign merely warns people in the parking lot of the potential dangers that can happen.While in most cases landlords cannot be liable for 3rd party crimes committed on their land this case falls in on of the 4 exceptions given in Walls V. Oxford Management Co., Inc Conclusion Yes the landlord, Nob Hill apartments, does have a duty to Rayn and can be successful in suing for a breach of duty from the landlord because he failed IRAC #2 Issue Whether Fox News has a duty to inform the Jessica of her disease status which would cause a reasonable person to ask for more details Whether the private lab, Vampire Labs, has a duty to disclose Jessica's disease status. Rule of Law Pehle v. Farm Bureau life Ins. Co., Inc: Companies have a duty to disclose results, no matter if the results are obtained independently or by a third party, that would make the plaintiff investigate the results further. Analysis As previously mentioned in order for one the be negligent they must (among other things) owe a duty to the person they harmed. A majority of these duties are created through special relationships which are mentioned in the Restatement (second) …show more content…
Bachelor bystanders have a legal duty from the tortfeasor and they can be liable for emotional distress. The case mentioned above also had similar facts and relied on the foreseeability doctrine to determine if a duty was owed in this case to the bystander. This foreseeability doctrine applied to this case is easy because a reasonable person should know the dangers of exceeding the speed limit especially on a very populated tourist attraction. Since this passes we move on to the next tests created in this case which first asks if there is a close relationship between the bystanders and the victim which there was because they are the parents of the victim. The second question asks if the plaintiffs were there during the event which they were. After it asks if the victim was seriously injured or killed which he was. Finally, it ask if there was an extreme reaction from the bystander which can be seen by both kim and kanye ran onto the middle of a busy street. Thus it meets all the requirements necessary to show that taylor is liable for the emotional distress she
Whether the landlord, Nob Hill Apartments, has a duty to provide security to residents and guests,Ryan Dolphin, from crimes committed by a third party.
Rule of Law
Walls V. Oxford Management Co., Inc: Landlords do not have to duty of provide security unless 1) there is a special relationship present 2) a special temptation is created to commit crimes on the land 3) if the crimes are foreseeable 4) when one voluntarily takes on the duty to provide security. Restatement [second] of torts 358: Licensees are social guests entitled to the landlord's liability when it comes to dangers that the landlord “knows or should know about”
Reasoning
In order for one to be considered negligent, actions that endanger another unreasonably, the defendant must have a duty, the requirement to act reasonably that arises out of relationships to people, to the plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff in this case is not a resident of the apartment where the crime was committed he would be considered an invitee, someone who allowed to be on the property but not for business purposes. According to the Restatement [second] of torts 358 these invitees are entitled to the same liability when it comes to dangers on the property as tenants are. The case presented, however, is extremely similar to wells v. Oxford Management where the court stated that the landlord doesn’t have a duty to protect against 3rd party crimes unless they are one of the exceptions listed above. Two exceptions may be applicable is the foreseeability exception and the voluntary duty taken on by the landlord. The foreseeability exception is viable considering all the crimes that occur there, however, when examining the crimes that were committed there the plaintiff was the first abduction. Thus that exception is invalid. The voluntary exception has more ground due to the fact not only are spotlights in place in the parking lot to deter crimes but also security cameras showing the landlords is making efforts to make the place more secure. The sign merely warns people in the parking lot of the potential dangers that can happen.While in most cases landlords cannot be liable for 3rd party crimes committed on their land this case falls in on of the 4 exceptions given in Walls V. Oxford Management Co., Inc Conclusion Yes the landlord, Nob Hill apartments, does have a duty to Rayn and can be successful in suing for a breach of duty from the landlord because he failed IRAC #2 Issue Whether Fox News has a duty to inform the Jessica of her disease status which would cause a reasonable person to ask for more details Whether the private lab, Vampire Labs, has a duty to disclose Jessica's disease status. Rule of Law Pehle v. Farm Bureau life Ins. Co., Inc: Companies have a duty to disclose results, no matter if the results are obtained independently or by a third party, that would make the plaintiff investigate the results further. Analysis As previously mentioned in order for one the be negligent they must (among other things) owe a duty to the person they harmed. A majority of these duties are created through special relationships which are mentioned in the Restatement (second) …show more content…
Bachelor bystanders have a legal duty from the tortfeasor and they can be liable for emotional distress. The case mentioned above also had similar facts and relied on the foreseeability doctrine to determine if a duty was owed in this case to the bystander. This foreseeability doctrine applied to this case is easy because a reasonable person should know the dangers of exceeding the speed limit especially on a very populated tourist attraction. Since this passes we move on to the next tests created in this case which first asks if there is a close relationship between the bystanders and the victim which there was because they are the parents of the victim. The second question asks if the plaintiffs were there during the event which they were. After it asks if the victim was seriously injured or killed which he was. Finally, it ask if there was an extreme reaction from the bystander which can be seen by both kim and kanye ran onto the middle of a busy street. Thus it meets all the requirements necessary to show that taylor is liable for the emotional distress she