According to the text,is an employer negligent for failing to protect an employee from being attacked by a dog,regardless of whether the dog is known to have abnormally dangerous propensities? (See the Labaj v.VanHouton case.)
A) An employer has no duties in regard to an animal on the premises because of the rule that animals cannot be absolutely controlled under any circumstances.
B) An employer can be held strictly liable for failing to protect an employee from getting attacked by a dog,even if the dog is not known to possess abnormally dangerous propensities.
C) An employer cannot be negligent for failing to protect an employee from getting attacked by a dog unless the dog is not known to possess abnormally dangerous propensities.
D) An employer can be negligent for failing to protect an employee from getting attacked by a dog,even if the dog is not known to possess abnormally dangerous propensities.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q27: _ is the publication of statements derogatory
Q28: A postoperative x-ray shows a surgical sponge
Q29: The U.S.Supreme Court has held that in
Q30: An intoxicated employee causes an automobile accident
Q31: Based on the text,if employees sue a
Q33: Which of the following is true regarding
Q34: The tort of negligence does not include
Q35: Written defamation is known as
A) libel.
B) slander.
C)
Q36: Which of the following is true regarding
Q37: Which of the following is subject to
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