The factors that indicate whether Davis owed Esposito a duty of care consist of three basic elements. “They are the likelihood that his conduct will injure others, taken with the seriousness of the injury if it happens, and balanced against the cost of the precaution he must take to avoid the risk. If the product of the likelihood of the injury exceeds the burden of the precautions, the risk is unreasonable and the failure to take precautions is negligence.” The Louisiana law that set precedents over trip-and-fall cases was Frelow v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. The ruling in this case was that Louisiana law recognizes a legal duty on the part of employees to exercise reasonable care not to obstruct the flow of pedestrian traffic. Esposito was walking in a straight when Davis decided suddenly to turn, without warning, knocking her to the ground. One witness account said, “It appeared as if Davis had forgotten something because he snapped his fingers while quickly turning”. Davis admitted that he did not look when he turned. These factors indicate that Davis was negligent. It was the storeowner’s responsibility to make sure that precautions have been taken to avoid risk on the property. Esposito had to prove that Davis caused her to suffer a legally recognizable injury. Also, that Davis caused her injuries by acting improperly.
Jentz, G. A., & Miller, R. L. (2008). Fundamentals of Business Law Part 1 MT311
U.S. Court of Appeals Cases & Opinions from Justia.com. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from website: http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/47/164/472610/