Just want to make sure
(1) should landowners own the same duty to his invitees as Gap owns to its customers? it seems to me that they all root from NEGLIGENCE, not a seperate bruch of tort law.
(2) when interprete the applicable rule, will court construe it broadly when injured party is a little kid who has little ability to find out the danger?
(3) can injured party claim "business practicce" rule? which says that "a merchant that uses such a self-service method of sale must bear the burden of showing what steps were taken to avoid the foreseeable risk og harm." if the jurisdiction recognize the rule, the injured party will have less burden of proof.
(1) should landowners own the same duty to his invitees as Gap owns to its customers? it seems to me that they all root from NEGLIGENCE, not a seperate bruch of tort law.
(2) when interprete the applicable rule, will court construe it broadly when injured party is a little kid who has little ability to find out the danger?
(3) can injured party claim "business practicce" rule? which says that "a merchant that uses such a self-service method of sale must bear the burden of showing what steps were taken to avoid the foreseeable risk og harm." if the jurisdiction recognize the rule, the injured party will have less burden of proof.
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
