The director of the children's zoo, Mr. Watson, was appalled to see an employee, Jake, throwing a pitchfork like a javelin in an area where there were both animals and children. Luckily, no one was hurt. He yelled to Jake to get busy and feed the birds so that the birds would come closer to the children. Jake opened a new sealed bag of feed and threw some to the birds. It happened that the manufacturer of the feed, ordered by Watson, had accidentally mixed some caustic substance with the feed, so that later in the day Jake's hand began to blister badly. Jake sued Watson for negligence because of the burns he suffered; Watson sued Jake for negligence because of the way Jake used the pitchfork. On these facts, which of the following is true?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The test that the court would apply to determine whether Jake owed a duty of care is whether a reasonable person would have foreseen that his acts could affect the children. This is also known as the "reasonable foreseeability" test. It is not relevant whether or not the children attending the zoo are voluntarily assuming any risk. Watson may not be liable for Jake's burns, as he may not have known that the feed was contaminated. Jake may be found liable for negligence with the pitchfork. Option E is also correct, as Jake did not purchase the feed from the manufacturer and, therefore, may not have legal standing to sue.

The Director of the Children's Zoo, Mr