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
82. Should the court grant the motion?
The store has moved for a directed verdict.
A shopper was riding on an escalator in a department store when the escalator stopped abruptly. The shopper lost her balance and fell down the escalator steps, sustaining injuries. Although the escalator had been regularly maintained by an independent contractor, the store's obligation to provide safe conditions for its invitees was nondelegable. The shopper has brought an action against the store for damages, and the above facts are the only facts in evidence.
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
B is incorrect. Landowners and occupiers are not strictly liable even for injuries to their business invitees. The court should not grant the motion, but it is because the fact finder could infer negligence on the part of the store or the contractor, and the store's obligation to provide safe conditions was nondelegable.
C is incorrect. Even if the malfunction were due to the negligence of the independent contractor, the store would also be responsible under the nondelegable duty doctrine. These facts illustrate a common situation in which that doctrine is applied: the defendant owns a building and invites the public to enter the building for the defendant's financial benefit. There is enough evidence here to support an inference of negligence on the part of the store or the contractor. A jury could find that the malfunction was due to the negligent installation, maintenance, or operation of the escalator; the store would be responsible for all these possible causes under the nondelegable duty doctrine.
D is incorrect. There is enough evidence here to support an inference of negligence on the part of the store or the contractor. A jury could find that the malfunction was due to the negligent installation, maintenance, or operation of the escalator; the store would be responsible for all these possible causes under the nondelegable duty doctrine.