Problem
Pozgar discusses a case, Coombes v. Florio, which discusses whether the physician had a duty of care to someone other than the patient for harm caused by the physician's failure to warn the patient about the side effects of treatment.
In Florida in the case of Michael & Philip, Inc. v. Sierra, 776 So2d 294 (4th DCA 2000), the court addressed a similar issue about whether the defendant owed a duty of care to a stranger. In Philip, the defendant was World Gym, who owned and operated a gym. A gym customer went to work out and upon entry to the gym, hung his keys on a key hook near the entrance, directly across from the front desk. While the customer was working out, someone stole his keys and stole his car. Later that day, while fleeing from police, the thief crashed the stolen car into the plaintiff's car and caused her injuries.
The plaintiff sued World Gym for negligence for providing an unsecured and unmonitored key board and failing to take specific precautions to prevent theft of keys and cars. The court ultimately ruled in favor of World Gym, finding that the gym did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff who was injured by the fleeing thief's crash.
Task
A. Why you think the court found that the physician owed a duty of care to the stranger injured in Coombes, but the Florida court did not find the gym owed a duty of care to the stranger injured in the Philip case.
B. What are the main reasons or facts that led to different results in each case?