California and other states use the substantial factor test instead of the proximate cause rule.
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 the store could:
a. be sued for negligence
b. be sued for strict liability for failure to protect a patron
c. have been liable if the incident occurred in the store, but not out in the parking lot d. not be liable as the incident was a random, uncommon event
e. none of the other choices