Vail v. Masker

Name
Course
Tutor
Date
Vail v. Masker
Case Citation
Vail v. Masker, 812 So.2d 807 (La.App. 4.Cir. 2002)
Facts
In the case of Vail v. Masker, the plaintiff wanted the court to set aside the decision by the trial court. The decision by the trial was that the owner of the McDonalds restaurant did not owe a duty to the plaintiff in terms of protecting them from unforeseeable events such as theft. Ms. Vail was at the McDonalds restaurant, and her purse was stolen (Vail v. Masker N.p). She chose to pursue the thief into the street and was knocked down by the getaway car. Ms. Vail had petitioned the court to compel the Masker to offer compensation for her injuries.
Issue 1
Does Mr. Masker and the General Accident Insurance Company have any duty to protect individuals such as Ms. Vail against the unforeseeable actions of third parties?
Issue 2
Were the actions of the lower court justified when it agreed with the summary judgment request by the defendants?
Decision
No/Yes
Reason
The decision by the Court of Appeal to uphold the summary judgment was based on a number of factors such as the fact that Ms. Vail was injured after pursuing the thief into the street. For the court to set aside the previous decision, the plaintiff had to prove that Mr. Masker had failed to conform to an established standard of care (Vail v. Masker N.p). Ms. Vail also needed to show that the defendant had acted in a manner that breached the duty of care. The substandard conduct should also be tied to the circumstances that caused the injuries.

The court noted that the General Accident Insurance Company and Ray Masker had no duty to protect individuals from the actions of third parties.
Work Cited
Vail v. Masker, 812 So.2d 807 (La.App. 4.Cir. 2002)