This paper analyzes two separate negligence causes of action arising from incidents at a restaurant. The first involves a customer, Ana, who suffered injury after ingesting glass found in her food; the second involves customers and employees injured during a fire. The paper applies the four elements of a prima facie negligence case — duty, breach, causation, and damages — to both sets of facts, examining issues of foreseeability, proximate cause, intervening forces, and medical malpractice as a foreseeable consequence. It concludes with a discussion of vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior, noting the restaurant's potential indemnity action against the responsible employee.
There are two separate negligence causes of action to consider. The first cause of action belongs to the customer who ingested the glass. The second cause of action may be brought by any customer or employee who sustained injury as a result of the fire. Both claims arise from the conduct of the same defendant: the restaurant.
To establish a prima facie case for negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care, which the defendant breached, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff. The first element requires proof of the existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to conform to a specific standard of conduct for the protection of the plaintiff against an unreasonable risk of injury.
Here, the restaurant is engaged in the business of serving food to customers. It is presumed that an ordinary, prudent, reasonable restaurant will take precautions against creating unreasonable risks of injury to its customers. From the restaurant's perspective, its customers are foreseeable plaintiffs. Therefore, the general duty of care extends from the restaurant to Ana, who is a foreseeable plaintiff as a customer eating at the restaurant.
In addition, the restaurant is a commercial establishment where large groups of people are invited to gather. A commercial establishment should always have a fire escape or an emergency exit door as part of the duty of reasonable care owed to its customers, employees, and all persons inside. There is always a foreseeable risk of fire, and it is equally foreseeable that people will incur injury from fire, smoke, or crowds attempting to escape. Moreover, this particular restaurant serves flaming dishes, which creates an increased risk of fire. Accordingly, a duty of care is owed to all restaurant customers and employees to take measures protecting them in the event of a fire.
Where the defendant's conduct falls short of the level required by the applicable standard of care owed to the plaintiff, the defendant has breached that duty. Whether the duty of care has been breached in an individual case is a question for the trier of fact.
In Ana's case, proof of breach is the presence of glass in the food served to her, which she consumed. By serving Ana food that contained a piece of glass, the restaurant engaged in conduct that created an unreasonable risk of injury. Thus, the restaurant breached its duty of reasonable care to Ana.
The restaurant also breached its duty of care to all customers and employees by failing to take measures to address the risk of fire — specifically by having only a single revolving door rather than multiple emergency exit doors. Consequently, the restaurant breached its duty of care to both customers and employees, all of whom qualify as potential plaintiffs.
"But-for and proximate cause applied to both claims"
"Compensable harm to Ana and other plaintiffs"
"Employer liability and indemnity against negligent employee"
You’re 38% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.