BLW ch 8 problems

BLW ch 8 problems - because the bottle is not supposed to...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Stephanie Baggio Prof. Devience BLW 201 Ch. 8 Problems 11, 12, 14 11. Yes, the store was negligent in its conduct because a puddle suggests, or rather is, an unnatural accumulation of water of something other than just water on the floor. The store allowed the water to accumulate in a puddle, and therefore can be liable for the puddle and liable for the injuries caused by the fall. 12. Yes, she should be able to recover on this theory. Although Coca-Cola was not guilty of negligence because they did not act unreasonably, Coca-Cola is liable under strict liability in tort law. This is because Coca-Cola makes the product and the bottle can be shown as defective
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: because the bottle is not supposed to do that, making Coca-Cola liable to compensate for the injury or to sue to the bottle manufacturer for a defective bottle. 14. Yes, Fredericks is liable under absolute liability in tort law because he must take affirmative action to protect others from the safety of his violent dog. Because Fredericks knew of his dog’s violent tendencies, making the dog dangerous, he is responsible for any harm the dog causes. Thus, he is liable under absolute liability since he has control over something dangerous that can create harm....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online