Exam ID: 6482
10/2/2020
We are here to look at the negligence suit that Mr. Johnson filed against Ms. Martinez.
There seems to be two issues with regards to the elements of duty and breach in this negligence
suit. The first element of duty is when the defendant had an obligation to conform to a particular
standard of conduct to another and that the standard of care to be applied is ordinarily reasonable
care under the circumstances. The second element of breach is whether the defendant breached
the duty by failing to exercise the requisite amount of care for the circumstance. One issue with
these elements under this fact pattern is whether a reasonable person would find the act of
Martinez attempt to save the boy as a negligent act. The other issue is whether she breached this
duty by failing to exercise the requisite amount of care for this incident.
To help Johnson, we can look at the strengths to his claim. A key aspect to the tort of
negligence is the foreseeability factor. Foreseeability of a type of harm is central to the issue of
whether a person’s conduct breached the standard of reasonable care needed for that
circumstance. A person can only be found negligent if the conduct created by the individual was
a foreseeable risk and the act recognized, or a reasonable person would have recognized, that
risk. In this incident, Martinez thought that the boy would chase after the dog and into the busy
street. This caused her to run into said street to stop the boy. While driving, most people would
say you should be vigilant and ready for anything, however, I think that a reasonable person
would not be able to foresee an individual randomly run across the road when there is not a
danger present. The boy and the dog were not yet in the road, so Johnson would not know that
there could be an emergency. Another strength for Johnson’s claim is the statute that is put in
place in this state. The statute says that, “Pedestrians must cross city streets and avenues in the
crosswalk at the corner. Any pedestrian crossing in the crosswalk has the right-of-way, and
traffic must stop to permit pedestrians to cross in the crosswalk.” In a negligence per se case, the
four qualifying elements are (1) the statute must define a required standard of conduct, (2) the
statute prevents the type of harm caused, (3) the plaintiff must be a member of the class of
persons the statute was meant to protect, and (4) the violation must have been the cause of the
injury. If Martinez were not crossing the road through a crosswalk, she would satisfy the
elements and could be convicted.
There is also the weakness in this case that Martinez had a duty to protect the boy from
chasing the dog into the street. This would leave the matter of whether her duty to protect the
boy would outweigh the fact that she ran into the street without warning and caused Johnson to
hit her. A reasonable person could say that Ms. Martinez had a duty to protect the boy and would
not be found negligent.
For this incident, a few issues arise to Johnson’s claim of negligence. The main issues are
whether a reasonable person will determine if the duty to save the boy would outweigh the duty
of Johnson to stop before hitting her and if Martinez breached her duty for this incident. The
strengths of the statute and foreseeability will help Johnson create his claim for negligence
against Martinez.