Question

George operates a movie theater. In the parking lot, there is a sign that sarys, "Not responsible for thet or accidents in the parking lot." When Holly goes to the movie on Wednesday night, she sees the sign and parks her model XYZ car. After viewing the movie, she retums to the parking lot only to find out that her XYZ modei car has been stolen. When she confronts George, it furns out, he is aware that every model XYZ car that has been parked in the movie theater parking lot for the past few months has been stolen. He congratulates Holy on owning such a "hot" vehicle and does nothing. He says the sign protects the movie theater trom lability. When the cops artive, they say they have been called to the movie theater several times a week for the past six months because model x trz cars (same as Holly's) have been stolen from the theater parking lot. Holly comes to you and asks if the movie theater can be held liable since George knew that model XYZ cars are stolen all the time at his theater. IRAC this. Is the sigh enough to protect the movie theater from fability given the extra tacts? Hint: Negligence law. The movie theater has a duty to wam or protect from known dangers the customers may not be able to see or appreciale. Note: You do not need to reply to anyone else. There is no word requirement but you must do a complete IRAC analysis and come to a conclusion.

Answer 1

According to negligence law, the sign disclaiming responsibility in the movie theater parking lot may not protect the theater from liability because the owner was aware of a pattern of thefts and did not take additional actions to mitigate the known risk.

Step-by-step explanation:

Issue: Can George's movie theater be held liable for Holly's car theft even though there is a sign in the parking lot disclaiming responsibility for thefts or accidents?

Rule: In negligence law, a business must warn or protect customers from foreseeable dangers. A business that knows, or should know, about certain dangers and fails to take reasonable steps to address them may be found liable for negligence if harm results due to the danger.

Analysis: George knew that a particular model of car was being regularly stolen from his parking lot, indicating a foreseeable risk to customers. His failure to take any steps to mitigate this known risk, such as by increasing security or directly warning owners of that car model, suggests a breach of the theater's duty of care to its customers. Considering the regularity and specificity of the thefts, the disclaimer sign may not suffice to protect the theater from liability for its inaction.

Conclusion: The sign alone is likely not enough to protect the movie theater from liability given the extra facts that George was aware of the recurrent thefts and took no additional action to prevent them. Therefore, it is possible that the movie theater could be held liable for the theft of Holly's car.