8. 8 to S0. Bill enters on to Cindý\'s trespass to land. Bill has o land. Bu hap

Question

8. 8 to S0. Bill enters on to Cindý's trespass to land. Bill has o land. Bu hapropery to heip Donna, who is in danger. Cindy charges Bill with a complete defense a partial defense a possible defense. no defense by proving that uMk alleging negligence. Mike can successfully defend against the surt newbuidins and sues Mike, negligence. a he is not familiar with every principle of art. d. 51. Lana hires Mike, er ephitect to design a warehouse, Lana is dissatisfted with the look of the his design is an attractive as an ordinary person's. Lana could not have designed a more attractive building Lana was not injured in any way. c. Dirk is driving a sport utility vehicle in which traffic accident, and Elin is injured. Liability may be imposed on Dirk for Elin's in Elin is a passenger when they are involved in a jury if Dirk 52. driving is a. neither the causation in fact nor the proximate cause of the injury. b. only the causation in fact of the injury. c. only the proximate cause of the injury. the causation in fact and the proximate cause of the injury. An elderly woman was having a difficult time climbing the steps on to a Greyhound Busa Greyhound Bus station in Seattle. Sam, the bus driver, go off the bus and started pushing the woman up the bus's steps in an effort to help her. As the driver pushed her up the steps, the 53. t the woman dropped a large bag containing an oxygen device that the woman used when she had trouble breathing. An oxygen canister rolled away from the bus, and another bus ran over the canister. The canister exploded, causing the large bus tire that had crushed the canister to explode also. Some of the rubber from the exploding bus tire hit and severely injuring Jim Stevenson, who was boarding another bus about twenty yards away. Based on the court's reasoning in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co,if Stevenson sues Greyhound for negligence, he will probably a. lose, because Greyhound did not set in motion the events that led to his injury b. win, because Sam's pushing the elderly woman on to the bus was negligent. c lose, because Stevenson's injury was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Sam's conduct. win, because Sam's conduct was the proximate cause of Stevenson's injury. d.

Explanation / Answer

50. a) A complete defense.

Any person who is meant to harm or damage others property is called trespasser. In this case, Bill was trying to help Donna who was in danger. Morale says saving a life is more important than protecting any property or land.

51. d) Lina was not injured in any way.

It may be true that Lina was not satisfied with the work of Mike but as she was not injured in any way so Mike can defend against the suit.

52. d) The causation in fact and the proximate cause of the injury.

It means that if the court found that due to the negligence of Dirk, Elin got injured then Dirk will be liable for suit. Also, if the court found that the proximate cause of the injury is Dirk himself then he will be liable.

53. c) Lose, because Stevenson's injury was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Sam's conduct.

As Sam was not intended to do any of the incident, he may not be liable for the situation. Sam was just trying to help the elderly woman as she was having difficulty climbing the bus steps.

Hope this helps :)

Please rate. Thanks.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 8
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.