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
Weber Test
Digital rectal exam (DRE). The physician’s index finger is inserted into the rectum and pressed agai
Triceps Reflex Test
Organic Test banks Carey 8th Edition
Right-hand Rule
Tricyclic antidepressants produce their effects by inhibiting the reuptake of neurotransmitters ...