a

1. Speedway’s duty
 Have a duty of care toward drivers
and passengers on Route 106
Mary got injured => Speedway’s duty

2. Whether Speedway breached that duty?
 Negligence:
_ Duty : as landowner, Speedway owe
Plaintiff a duty of care
_ Breach : Speedway breached that duty
owe to the Mary
_ Damages : the breach caused Mary to
suffer a legally recognizable injury

3.  Causation in fact
_ Did the injury occur because of the
defendant's act, or would the injury have
occurred anyway? (“but for” test)
_Wheeler only follows the direction of traffic
director (Neergaard) to turn left
=> But for Neergaard’s act the injury would
not have occurred.

4.  Proximate causation
_ Mary sustained an injury to her right knee,
her ankle, and a broken hip
=> The negligence is the proximate cause of
the injury when the causal connection
between the act and injury is strong enough
to impose liability
 Neergaard's failure to prevent the
accident

5. CONCLUDE
• Speedway’s negligence caused Mary legal
injury
=> The court should state that the
Speedway had breached its duty of care
=> declare Wheeler to be not guilty