The substantial factor test and the proximate cause rule produce ...

[crobinson2013]

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

[chreslie]

Answer to Question 1

FALSE

Answer to Question 2

a

[crobinson2013]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it

[bimper21]

Gracias!