According to the text, is an employer negligent for failing to protect an employee from being attacked by a dog, whether or not the dog is known to have abnormally dangerous propensities? (See the Labaj v. VanHouston case.)
a. An employer has no duties in regard to an animal on the premises because of the rule that animals cannot be absolutely controlled under any circumstances.
b. An employer can be held strictly liable for failing to protect an employee from getting attached by a dog, even if the dog is not known to possess abnormally dangerous propensities.
c. An employer cannot be negligent for failing to protect an employee from getting attached by a dog unless the dog is not known to possess abnormally dangerous propensities.
d. An employer can be negligent for failing to protect an employee from getting attached by a dog, even if the dog is not known to possess abnormally dangerous propensities.
d
You might also like to view...
Describe the key tasks in the sales order process
The marketing research proposal serves one main function: it states the problem
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Depreciation of fixed assets is considered to be a discretionary cost
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Describe the challenges in the design of service offerings
What will be an ideal response?