Davis Verses Esposito

436 Words2 Pages
Running Head: Assignment 2: Davis Verses Esposito Shanetta Boles LS311: Business Law 1-02 Unit 2: Assignment Davis Verses Esposito September 6, 2012 Davis verses Esposito When it comes to case of Davis verses Esposito I do feel that Davis was careless in his action and that Esposito had the right to sue for intentional negligence. Now the reason I have come to this conclusion is because Davis action was not do on purpose but he should have know that standing in that door at that moment something was bound to happen. Let’s go back in the story it says that an arts and crafts show had just been dismissed so I can imagine a group of people coming out of an entrance. So for Davis to be standing in the door way was a safety hazard that could have been prevented if he was not in the door way to begin. Now you have Esposito on her way out of the door here comes Davis not paying attention knocks this lady down causing her to injury herself resulting in hip replacement. So even thou he did not mean for that to happen it happened and it left her with a permanent scare and hardware that will be with her for the rest of her life. In this case a reasonable person could have foreseen something like this to happen they would have not been in the door way to begin with. With this being said his actions caused an injury and his duty was to protect the customer. Negligence is an unintentional tort and occurs when someone is injured because the employer or employee failed to do their legal duty and protect the customer. The employee or employer action could have prevented with common sense. He should have none better than to be standing in a door while people was coming out and he also should have been paying attention and was not. It is the storeowner duty to ensure that his customers were safe and he did not which lead to a customer

More about Davis Verses Esposito

Open Document