The Supreme Court of California in Wiener v.Southcoast Childcare Centers,Inc.:
A) ruled that it did not matter whether the driver of the vehicle acted negligently or with criminal intent, the risk of harm from an unsafe fence was the same and defendants had a duty to make the fence stronger.
B) required application of a different standard for third-party criminal acts versus acts of ordinary negligence.
C) determined that foreseeability was not at issue in this case.
D) placed importance on the fact that the child care facility had been the target of violence in the past.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q12: Negligence concerns harm that
A)is unforeseeable.
B)arises intentionally.
C)arises by
Q31: The test of "foreseeability" is generally used
Q32: Phillip was waiting for a bus at
Q33: Laura,a brain surgeon,committed a negligent act when
Q34: Kelley went ice skating on a neighbor's
Q35: Kyle was eating clam chowder soup in
Q37: In Hernandez v.Arizona Board of Regents,the court
Q37: If a court applies res ipsa loquitur
A)the
Q38: Punitive damages are awarded:
A) for past and
Q41: Mavrex,Inc.received an application from Larry,and since his
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