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
62. In an action by the hiker against the property owner to recover for his head injury, will the hiker be likely to prevail?
A hiker sustained a head injury when he was struck by a limb that fell from a tree. At the time of his injury, the hiker was walking through a forest on private property without the property owner's knowledge or permission. It was determined that the limb fell because the tree was infested with termites.
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. Nothing in the facts suggests that the weakness of the limb could not have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable care. The hiker was a trespasser, however, because he entered without the permission of the owner, and a possessor of land is not required to exercise reasonable care to make his land safe for trespassers. If the property owner had owed a duty to take reasonable care to protect the hiker, the property owner might have been required to make regular inspections of the conditions on his land.
C is incorrect. The hiker was a trespasser because he entered without the permission of the owner. A possessor of land is not required to exercise reasonable care to make his land safe for trespassers.
D is incorrect. The hiker was a trespasser because he entered without the knowledge or permission of the owner. A property owner is liable only for artificial conditions highly dangerous to trespassers and only when he knows about the trespasser or has some reason to anticipate the trespasser's presence.