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 …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 …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