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.
38. Should the court grant the landowner's motion for sanctions?
The landowner moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, claiming the area in question was not the landowner's «premises» and that it owed no duty to the woman. Along with the motion to dismiss, the landowner moved for sanctions on the ground that the claim was not warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for establishing new law.
An attorney filed a complaint based on negligence and failure to warn of dangers on behalf of his client, a woman. The allegations were predicated on the theory that the woman, an invitee to a landowner's premises, was on a portion of the landowner's premises that the landowner did not own, but to which the landowner had directed the woman onto, where she was attacked by third parties. When the complaint was filed, it was unclear under the law whether a property owner's «premises» extended to land that the landowner did not own, but frequently used as a waiting area for his invitees, as in the woman's claim.
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
In this case, there has been no such opportunity for the woman's attorney to withdraw or correct the complaint, nor was the sanctions motion filed separately from the motion to dismiss. Therefore, the motion for sanctions should be denied.
A is incorrect. A party is not required to affirmatively «make it clear» on the face of its filed complaint that its legal contention is supported by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for expanding the law. Moreover, here, it was unclear under the law whether the woman's claim was valid (that a property owner's «premises» extended to land that the landowner did not own, but frequently used as a waiting area for his invitees).
B is incorrect. This is a misstatement of the facts. It is unclear whether the woman has a claim under existing law, as is explicitly stated.
D is incorrect. The court should not grant the sanctions motion, but not because the landowner failed to allege that the woman's complaint contained inaccurate factual allegations. The motion should be denied because it was not filed separately, and the woman's attorney was not given the opportunity to withdraw or correct it. Whether the complaint contained inaccurate factual allegations is not dispositive at this stage in deciding the motion.