What is the attractive nuisance doctrine, and what is the rationale for having it?
What will be an ideal response?
The attractive nuisance doctrine is a special tort rule that imposes liability on a landowner to children who have trespassed onto his or her property with the intent to play on an attractive nuisance and are subsequently killed or injured while doing so. The rationale for this doctrine is that children, due to their youth, do not understand the potential risk associated with the hazard. To find the landowner liable to the child, the attraction must pose an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm.
You might also like to view...
We can choose to take an optimistic view of the world which accomplishes?
a. A world that looks more positive to us and viewing constraints b. A more enjoyable place to live c. An ability to respond to opportunities not constraints and a world that looks negative d. A world that looks more positive, a more enjoyable place to live, and an ability to respond to opportunities, not constraints
In response to China's requirement to censor Internet searches
A. Google supported cyberattacks against Chinese government servers. B. Google agreed to engage in censorship, disclosing to customers that censorship had occurred. C. Google chose not to enter that country. D. Google provided users of its Chinese site with a hot link to its uncensored U.S. site, which prevented the Chinese government from restricting Chinese users access to uncensored content. E. Google refused to engage in censorship, including a disclosure on its site that no censorship had occurred.
Why would a MPR professional include a FAQ in a press kit that already contains a fact sheet?
What will be an ideal response?
Kyle was eating clam chowder soup in a restaurant when a very small piece of bone lodged in his throat. Fortunately, he was able to remove the bone with his fingers. However, he was upset by the incident and sued the restaurant for negligence. What is the most likely result in this case?
a. Kyle will not collect any damages since he did not sustain any damages. b. Kyle will collect damages because the restaurant committed negligence per se. c. Kyle will collect damages if he proves it was possible to prevent tiny fish bones from being present in clam chowder. d. Kyle will collect damages, as res ipsa loquitur applies.