Speedway had a duty to direct traffic with reasonable care onto its land next to Route 106. It failed to do so when its traffic director signaled for a driver to turn left at the same time another car was passing, causing an accident that injured Mary. This establishes that Speedway breached its duty of care, and that the breach was the proximate cause of Mary's injuries to her knee, ankle, and hip. Therefore, the court should find that Speedway was negligent but that the driver who followed the traffic director's signal was not guilty of negligence.

1. Speedway‘s duty
1) According to the case, Speedway was voluntarily get the task of directing traffic
onto its land which is next to Route 106, it also had a duty of care toward drivers and
passengers on this route . Thus, Speedway was required to act with reasonable care
and when Mary was driving on and got injured on this route, it is Speedway’s
responsibility
2) Whether Speedway breached that duty?
The elements of negligence are duty, breach, causation and damages. According to
Duty of care and its breach, as landowner, Speedway own Plaintiff a duty of care. An
action for negligence may be brought if the Speedway breached that duty own to Mary
and the breach caused Mary to suffer a legal injury: she sustained an injury to her right
knee, her ankle, and a broken hip.
3) Causation in fact: Did the injury occur because of the defendant's act, or would
the injury have occurred anyway? Driver (Wheeler) only follows the direction of traffic
director .In fact, Wheeler saw Neergaard signaling him to turn left , and he did, that is
the reason for this accident . Thus, we could say, but for Neergaard’s act the injury
would not have occurred.
4) Proximate causation : In this case, Mary sustained an injury to her right knee,
her ankle, and a broken hip , that means the negligence is the proximate cause of the
injury when the causal connection between the act and injury is strong enough to
impose liability.
Beside, Wheeler turned left at the same time as Carignan was intending to pass, and it
was end up with Neergaard 's failure to prevent the accident and caused Mary's injuries
Conclude
In conclusion , Speedway’s negligence caused Mary legal injury and because of that,
the court should state that the Speedway had breached its duty of care and Wheeler, in
contrast should be declared to be not guilty because after all, he just follows
Neergaard’s signal.