Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
- Homepage »
- Torts »
- Negligence
15. The best argument in support of this motion would be that
The officer brought an action against the defendant alleging that the defendant was negligent in inviting the group to his house to watch this championship game. The defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint.
During the game, the defendant's guests became rowdy and antagonistic. Fearing that they would begin to fight, and that a fight would damage his possessions, the defendant asked his guests to leave. They refused to go and soon began to fight. The defendant called the police, and a police officer was sent to the defendant's home. The officer sustained a broken nose in his efforts to stop the fighting.
A defendant and a group of his friends are fanatical basketball fans who regularly meet at each others' houses to watch basketball games on television. Some of the group are fans of the home team, and others are fans of the rival team. When the group has watched televised games between these two teams, fights sometimes have broken out among the group. Despite this fact, the defendant invited the group to his house to watch a championship game between the home team and the rival team.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. If the policeman were an ordinary rescuer, he could recover damages if his injury was a foreseeable result of negligent conduct by the individual he was rescuing. It is the officer's status as a professional emergency worker that creates the bar to recovery.
C is incorrect. Generally, the firefighter's rule has been interpreted to mean that the defendant had no duty to the officer either to avoid creating the danger which needed the officer's services, or to protect the officer from any associated harms that the defendant had no knowledge of. If there is no duty, then the issue of proximate cause does not arise.
D is incorrect. As explained above, the strongest argument is the firefighter's rule because the police officer was injured due to a peril that he was employed to confront. Arguing that the officer is a licensee would impose a duty of care on the defendant to warn of or make safe certain dangerous conditions on the premises, whereas the firefighter's rule would bar to recovery.