The issue is whether did Larry Landlord fall below the standard of care by not maintaining the fire alarm in the hallway properly causing the severe injury of Sally Smith? I believe Larry Landlord fell below the standard of care in this case. To the reasons set forth below: According the rule of reasonable person under the standard of care, I can definitely foresee the injury coming.
Her injury could have prevented If the landlord has maintained the fire alarm on the first floor. Due to the malfunction f fire alarm on the first floor, Smith realized the fire after It started on the first floor ten minutes later. Since the malfunctioned alarm takes away smith’s chance of escaping from escaping from the hallway, which forced Smith to escape from the window causing her Injury.
Also, referring to the rule of BPL under the standard of care, the burden of maintalng the fire alarm on the first floor Is way smaller than the probability of having a fire multiply causing Injuries even death. Lastly, due to the rule of statute under the standard of care, Larry Landlord should have followed the ocal ordinance 10:060 3, which reads below: Maintenance of smoke detectors. All smoke detectors in residential building shall be maintained in good working order by the owner of such building.
Larry Landlord had broken the local ordinance and caused the injury of Smith. I believe it is reasonable for Sally Smith to sue Larry Landlord for her injury. Larry Landlord did not take the responsibility to maintain the fire alarm on the first floor. It indirectly forced Smith to escape from her window, which is known to be dangerous. The proximate cause of negligence can be easily foreseen.