Peter Plaintiff was walking down the sidewalk next to Dagmar's Microbrewery. As he passed under an open window on the second floor of the brewery, Peter was hit by a falling barrel that caused serious injury to his head and arm. Peter filed a negligence action against Dagmar's Microbrewery. At trial, Dagmar's Microbrewery admits that the barrel was from the microbrewery and that Dagmar's Microbrewery owed a duty of care to others under negligence law. Peter also offers evidence of his injuries and medical expenses. Peter was unable to offer any other evidence. From the answer choices below, what additional evidence would be most helpful to completing Peter's negligence claim?
A)That the barrel was under the control of Dagmar's Microbrewery and that it fell as a result of an employee's carelessness.
B)That Dagmar's Microbrewery is responsible for the acts of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
C)That Dagmar's Microbrewery is the manufacturer and owner of the barrel.
D)That Dagmar's Microbrewery intended to use the barrel to store and transport its product.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

That the barrel was under the control of Dagmar's Microbrewery and that it fell as a result of a breach of the duty of care. Answer A would be the most helpful because it would support the breach of duty element of a negligence claim. Answer B is not the best answer because, even if established, respondeat superior does not prove a breach of duty. Answer C is not the best response because it is irrelevant whether Dagmar's made the barrel. Answer D is not the best response because how Dagmar's intended to use the barrel is irrelevant.

Peter Plaintiff Was Walking Down the Sidewalk Next to Dagmar's