Question

Pete, an MBA student was studying with his friend at the Nook Coffee Shop. Pete had to use the restroom and asked his classmate Dave who he was studying with if he would watch his laptop computer while he used the restroom. Dave agreed.

Soon after Pete left to use the restroom, Dave also left the laptop computer unattended so that he could refill his cup of coffee.

Pete and Dave both returned to the table approximately five minutes later to find that the laptop was missing. It was later discovered through the Nook security cameras that the laptop had been stolen.

If Pete sues Dave for negligence, will he prevail?

	A.	Yes, because Dave knew that Pete was relying on him to watch the laptop computer.
	B.	No, because Dave’s breach of duty was not the proximate cause of the harm suffered.
	C.	Yes, but only if the student tries to recover from the thief first.
	D.	No, because Dave had no duty to watch the laptop computer.

Answer 1

The answer is Option A. Yes, because Dave knew that Pete was relying on him to watch the laptop computer.

A person can sue another and he deserves compensation as the other party has acted negligently .

However to prove negligence and claim compensation , four elements should be met namely duty , breach , causation and damage .

In this question , it was the duty of Dave to take care of the laptop in Pete's absence as he agreed to this duty .

Dave has departed from the required standard of care and so he breached his obligation .

Further to prove causation , it can be said that it is the proximate cause of injury . The laptop wouldn't have been stolen if he didn't went to refill his cup of tea .

Damage can be proved here , as actual harm or injury has occurred to Pete because of Dave's carelessness and negligence .