
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.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q2: Under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act,websites
Q5: A tort is a type of civil
Q12: Trespass to personal property and conversion are
Q16: An employer may not be held directly
Q20: The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
Q22: Paul attempted to hit Bruce without good
Q24: Which of the following is the exercise
Q25: In which of the following situations would
Q35: Written defamation is known as
A) libel.
B) slander.
C)
Q39: Under the doctrine of _,the plaintiff's negligence
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents