Ramage from possible and foreseeable injuries. GET breached these duties by not inquiring and determining that all motor-coach seats had seatbelts, and the lack of a seatbelt was the proximate and legal cause of Ramage’s injuries. Fifth, Ramage argues GET owed him a duty created by the contract warranty, and breach of the duty by GET created a cause of action based on negligence. Eads v. Marks, 39 Cal.2d 807, 810-11, 249 P.2d 257 (1952). GET had total control of the arranging of motorcoaches, and had a duty to insure that the motoreoaeh in question had seat-belts. Ram he “Responsibility” disclaimer is immaterial. He had the chance to read it, and he signed it. Marek v. Marpan Two, Inc., 817 F.2d 242, 245 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 852, 108 S.Ct. 155, 98 L.Ed.2d 110 (1987) (<HOLDING>). GET reasserts that the “Responsibility”
holding that the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile holding that omission was not plain error holding that the passenger who omits toread the contract takes the risk of omission holding an officer may order a passenger to get out of a car during a traffic stop and may frisk a passenger for weapons if the officer reasonably suspects the passenger is armed and dangerous holding that full performance takes a contract outof the statute of frauds