I. In order to claim negligence against Ford Motor Co. in this case all of the elements of negligence must be met. The first is "The Duty" which says that we all have a duty to act like an ordinary and reasonably prudent person. The second is "Breach of Duty"where there must be a determination that the defendant fell short of the standard of care or breached the duty that was established under the first element. The third element, "Causation", uses the "but/for" test to prove that a breach of duty caused the plaintiff's injuries. The fourth element is "Proximate Cause" which draws an imaginary line between the “but for” causation and any events that may have contributed to the injuries to the plaintiff. The fifth and final element is "Damages". This element states that a plaintiff must be able to establish the fact that the injuries to the plaintiff were caused by the negligence of the defendant.

II. The Ford Motor Co. may try to claim contributory negligence in this case. It could try to say that the fact that Mr. Chancit wasn't wearing his seat belt and the fact that the city of Los Angeles mismarked the lane closure cause the injuries and ultimately the death of Mr. Chancit.

III. The city of Los Angeles may be liable under negligence also. They breached their duty by failing to properly direct traffic for the lane closure. Also negligence could be found in posting a 60 MPH speed limit in a construction zone.

IV. I believe that it would be very hard to prove any liability against Chi-Chi's in this