Andreas has sued Kathryn for negligence.Kathryn argues that she did not owe a duty of care to Andreas.Which of the following statements is TRUE?
A) The court cannot recognize a duty of care if Andreas was injured as a result of Kathryn's omission, rather than by her action.
B) The court may refuse to recognize a duty of care even if it was reasonably foreseeable that Andreas might be injured as a result of Kathryn's carelessness, on grounds that public policy does not permit the extension of the duty of care to this relationship.
C) A court may recognize a duty of care even if it was not reasonably foreseeable that Andreas might be injured as a result of Kathryn's carelessness.
D) The court cannot recognize a duty of care if Kathryn was Andreas's mother.
E) The court cannot recognize a duty of care if Andreas and Kathryn were parties to the same contract.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q9: Maura was injured by the unexpected explosion
Q10: In determining whether or not the defendant
Q11: Shakira was injured by the explosion of
Q12: Bettina works as a financial advisor.Cory had
Q13: The thin skull doctrine applies to the
Q15: Ocala Corp operated a factory that caused
Q16: Maritza suffered a heart attack after consuming
Q17: After Mustaffa paid a price of $50
Q18: Alpha Corp recently suffered two losses.First, as
Q19: Omikron Ltd hired Mekhi, a recent graduate
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