The substantial factor test and the proximate cause rule produce significantly different results in negligence cases.
a. True
b. False
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Question 2
In Erichsen v. No-Frills Supermarkets, a woman who was shopping was seriously injured by a robber in the parking lot. She sued the store claiming that its failure to provide adequate security was a breach of its duty to her. The Nebraska high court held that:
a. the store could be sued for negligence because there was a sufficient amount of criminal activity in the area to warrant warning customers
b. the store could not be sued for negligence because there was a sufficient amount of criminal activity in the area to warrant warning customers
c. the store could not be sued for negligence because there was not a sufficient amount of criminal activity in the area to warrant warning customers
d. the store could not be sued for negligence because Erichsen had a duty to protect herself
e. the store could not be sued for negligence because the high crime in the area was common knowledge
The Procedure Used to Produce Conditioned Emotional Responses
Maze-dull rats did not make significantly more errors than maze-bright rats when both groups were ...
How to common factor an expression
Cylinder Leakage Test
Allen’s test
The F1 and F2 results of crosses Sturtevant