Becky,a three-year-old child,was seriously injured when she stuck her fingers into an electrical outlet.Her parents sued the restaurant where the incident occurred,claiming it should have had child protective guards on the outlets.Which of the following statements is true:

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The restaurant is liable if the incident was reasonably foreseeable. This is because the restaurant had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid harm to its patrons, including the foreseeable risk of harm to children. Whether the restaurant breached that duty depends on whether it should have had child protective guards on the outlets, which in turn depends on whether such a risk was reasonably foreseeable. The fact that the child was injured suggests that the risk was foreseeable, but this would be a question of fact for a court to determine. Strict liability and res ipsa loquitur are not applicable in this case. The doctrine of strict liability would only apply in certain situations where there is a high likelihood of harm regardless of the defendant's negligence. Res ipsa loquitur would only apply if the accident was caused by something within the exclusive control of the restaurant and there was no other explanation for the accident. The fact that the child should have been under her parents' supervision does not necessarily absolve the restaurant of its own duty of care.

Becky,a Three-Year-Old Child,was Seriously Injured When She Stuck Her Fingers