4. Assume that the child was negligent and the child's mother did not adequately supervise the child. If the customer brings an action, based on negligence, against the child's mother, will the customer prevail?

D is correct. Parents have a number of affirmative duties based on their special relationship to their minor children. This includes the duty to exercise reasonable care in the control of the parent's minor children. A parent who is physically present and fails to exercise control of her child is generally not vicariously liable for the child's tortious behavior; rather, the parent may be liable for her own negligence in failing to control the child. Because the child's mother was not adequately supervising her daughter, and it was foreseeable that the child could potentially injure someone, the customer is likely to prevail.

A is incorrect. The action is against the child's mother, who had an affirmative duty to control her child. It is the mother's negligence, not the tortious behavior of the child, that renders the mother liable.

B is incorrect. The correct standard of care here is negligence, not strict liability. The mother was liable because the harm caused by the child's actions was reasonably foreseeable, not because she is responsible for any harm, which would be incorrectly applying strict liability.

C is incorrect. Assumption of risk must be knowing and expressed or implied. More importantly, it is used as a defense by the defendant against a claim of negligence by the plaintiff. The mother cannot «assume the risk» of the child's behavior unless the mother was the plaintiff herself in an action. This choice implies vicarious liability, which is not at issue here.