As pedestrians exited at the close of an arts and crafts show, Davis, an MKS employee, was standing on an apron at an entrance of the Pontchartrain Center when he suddenly and without warning turned 180 degrees and collided with Esposito, an eighty-year-old woman. Esposito was knocked to the ground, fracturing her hip. She was taken to the hospital where she underwent hip- replacement surgery. She was hospitalized for six-weeks and was left with a twenty-percent permanent physical impairment to her leg, as well as aggravation of a pre-existing arthritic condition in her back.

Davis contend that Davis was not negligent as a matter of law.

Davis argues that he cannot be held liable for negligence because Davis owed no duty to Esposito. Specifically, he contends that, as a matter of law, it would be unreasonable under any circumstances to impose a duty upon a pedestrian to keep a proper lookout prior to turning around.

What is the test for determining whether a risk is unreasonable? Is there a formula?

1. Explain how you would decide this case. Explain how the elements of this tort favor Esposito orDavis