74. In a negligence action by the man against the car rental agency, is the man likely to prevail?

A is correct. The standard to be applied in a negligence action is whether the defendant acted with ordinary care. The presence of a bomb in a rental car is sufficiently unlikely that a reasonable rental agency would not routinely inspect for such a device. In the absence of evidence that the agency should have foreseen that there might be a bomb hidden in the car, the man cannot prove a negligence claim.

B is incorrect. Under some circumstances, the rental agency could be liable even though it did not hide the bomb. If it were reasonably foreseeable that a bomb might be planted in a rental car (for example, because that practice had become a common terrorist tactic in the area), a reasonably prudent rental agency would routinely search for such a device before renting out the car. In that situation, even though the agency did not hide a bomb itself, it would be liable for failing to take reasonable precautions. In this case, the agency will not be liable to the man, because it took all reasonable precautions under the circumstances.

C is incorrect. Even if an untaken precaution (such as an inspection for explosive devices) would have revealed a danger, the defendant in a negligence action is responsible only for taking those precautions that are reasonably necessary. A bomb has a high potential for inflicting serious injury, but in most cases it is so unlikely to be found in a rental car that the time and effort needed for a routine search for bombs would not be justified. If incidents involving bombs in rental cars began to occur, that calculation might change, but in this case, the agency will not be liable to the man, because it took all reasonable precautions under the circumstances.

D is incorrect. The car may well have become abnormally dangerous once the bomb was planted, but the agency did not intentionally engage in an abnormally dangerous activity. Moreover, even if the court decided that the agency had engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity, that conclusion would support strict liability, not negligence. Unreasonable conduct, rather than abnormal danger, is the key to liability in negligence. And in this negligence action, the agency will not be liable to the man, because it took all reasonable precautions under the circumstances.