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
68. In an action by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover for the fire damage, is it possible for the plaintiff to prevail?
A fire that started in the defendant's warehouse spread to the plaintiff's adjacent warehouse. The defendant did not intentionally start the fire, and the plaintiff can produce no evidence as to how the fire started. However, the defendant had failed to install a sprinkler system, which was required by a criminal statute. The plaintiff can produce evidence that had the sprinkler system been installed, it could have extinguished the fire before it spread.
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. As explained above, the criminal statute may be used as the standard of care in this case.
B is incorrect. Even though there is no evidence that the defendant intentionally or negligently started the fire, his failure to take preventive steps to stop the spread of fires was a but-for cause of the plaintiff's loss.
C is incorrect. The modern interpretation of Rylands v. Fletcher limits the precedent to a category of «abnormally dangerous activities.» There is no indication that the defendant here engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.