回複：回複：I heard if someone got injured in your house, the ho

來源: 68106 於 2005-12-07 16:03:57 [] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 閱讀數 : (682 bytes)
本文內容已被 [ 68106 ] 在 2006-01-03 08:15:59 編輯過。如有問題，請報告版主或論壇管理刪除.

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.

所有跟帖： 

• 回複：回複：回複：I heard if someone got injured in your house, -66196- ♀ 給 66196 發送悄悄話 (2772 bytes) () 12/07/2005 postreply 17:04:12

• business practice rule -68106- ♀ 給 68106 發送悄悄話 (1296 bytes) () 12/08/2005 postreply 10:43:31

• Sounds like a good rule -66196- ♀ 給 66196 發送悄悄話 (1628 bytes) () 12/08/2005 postreply 13:30:30

請您先登陸，再發跟帖！