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
16. If the customer sues the supermarket, the result should be for the
One evening, a customer drove to the supermarket to see about a special on turkeys that the supermarket was advertising. She decided that the turkeys were too large and left the store without purchasing anything. In the parking lot, she was attacked by an unknown man who raped her and then ran away.
Other than posting the signs, the supermarket took no other precautions to prevent criminal activity on the premises.
«Warning: There are pickpockets and muggers at work in this part of the city. The supermarket is not responsible for the acts of criminals.»
A supermarket is in a section of town where there are sometimes street fights and where pedestrians are occasionally the victims of pickpockets and muggers. In recognition of the unusual number of robberies in the area, the supermarket posted signs in the store that read:
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
The landowner owes an invitee a general duty to use reasonable and ordinary care in keeping the property reasonably safe for the invitee. This general duty includes the same duties owed to licensees, including the duty to warn of or make safe non-obvious, dangerous conditions known to the landowner and to use ordinary care in active operations on the property; PLUS a duty to make reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions and, thereafter, make them safe. The «make safe» requirement is usually met when a reasonable warning has been given.
In situations involving tortious acts of third persons, an owner of a business may still have a duty to exercise reasonable care, including the requirement to take reasonable security measures to prevent attacks or thefts against customers. Thus, a duty to warn in this scenario will not be sufficient; the landowner will likely have to take affirmative steps to prevent the known danger from causing harm.
A is correct. The plaintiff should prevail because the supermarket had a duty to take reasonable steps to make the conditions on its premises, indoors and outdoors, reasonably safe. It must conduct active operations with reasonable care for the presence of its invitees; and, under limited circumstances, to use reasonable care to protect its customers against the foreseeable harmful/criminal acts of third persons. Because the supermarket had actual knowledge of violent crimes occurring in the area, the failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers will give rise to liability, despite the fact that signs were posted.
B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The plaintiff will prevail against the supermarket, but not because it is strictly liable for any harm to invitees on the premises. The duty exists because the supermarket knew that this exact type of foreseeable danger threatened the safety of its customers, and as such, should have taken affirmative steps to conduct business in a safe manner. The duty may not have existed for harm caused to invitees if, for example, it was entirely unforeseeable.
C is incorrect. Although the signs were visible to the customer, this does not absolve the supermarket of liability. As explained above, the duty to take affirmative steps existed because the danger was foreseeable and the supermarket must conduct business in a way that is safe for its customers, and posting a sign is not enough to carry out this duty.
D is incorrect. The rapist was the ACTUAL, but-for cause (as opposed to the proximate cause) of the customer's injuries. However, that is not the issue being tested by this question. The issue is whether the supermarket acted reasonably to meet its burden of care in protecting the plaintiff, its customer, from the known or discoverable dangerous conditions on its premises.