The issue here is whether Dylan was negligent and thus liable for damages to Patsy. I concluded Patsy will not be able to recover medial expenses

In order to be successful in her suit against Dylan Patsy must first prove Dylan owed her a duty of care.
In this situation there is a duty of care provided in the special relationship between an EMT (Patsy) and patient (Dylan). Next, Patsy must prove there was a breach of that duty. The law considers the following factors: The foreseeable probability Dylan’s conduct would result in harm to Patsy, the severity of the harm to Patsy, and Dylan’s burden of taking action to reduce the risk of harm to Patsy (pg. 147). Dylan riding his horse while intoxicated may have a foreseeable probability of causing harm to himself, but not to Patsy. Additionally, there is nothing Dylan could of …show more content…
This relates to the element Patsy must prove; that Dylan’s actions were the factual cause of her harm. Using the “but-for test”, we can conclude that had Dylan not been riding his horse drunk, he would have been less likely to fall, and Patsy would not of been called to the scene, and so she would most likely of not broken her arm slipping on manure and almost certainly would not of been bitten by a horse. However, this does not alone prove that Dylan was negligent. Patsy must also prove that Dylan’s actions were the proximate cause to her injury. Third restatement, section 29 dictates that Dylan is not liable for all harm factually caused by his conduct only harms that results from risks that make his conduct tortious. I would argue that the plaintiff slipping on manure and breaking her arm, and then her falling startling the horse and provoking it bite her is an unforeseeable cause of events, and superseding cause