Purchase a course multi-pack for yourself or a friend and save up to 50%!
5-COURSE MULTI-PACK $180
10-COURSE MULTI-PACK $300
Accelerated 1-year bachelor's program
Question 1
Clearbrook, Inc. is a company that bottles and distributes spring water. Clearbrook has a network of pipelines that pump water into three giant water tanks that sit on top of the Clearbrook bottling plant. From the water tanks, the water is pumped into the plant, bottled and shipped out. Each tank holds one million gallons of water. One day, one of the water tanks ruptures, sending hundreds of thousands of gallons of water cascading down the side of the bottling plant and flooding the streets surrounding the plant. Mickey, who has been walking his dog Pluto a block away from the plant, gets swept away by the flood waters. Pluto drowns and Mickey is severely injured. If Mickey tries to sue Clearwater, the argument that gives him the best chance of winning is:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct This is a perfect example of the Res Ipsa Loquator doctrine where the very fact that harm has occurred may itself establish both parts of the breach requirement (what actually happened and that defendant acted unreasonably). The three essential factors which must be established in order to invoke Res Ipsa Loquator are 1) the accident must be of a type which normally does not occur in the absence of negligence, 2) the negligence can be attributed to the defendant because the accident is of a type that the defendant had a duty to guard against, and 3) neither the plaintiff nor any third party contributed to or caused the accident. Here, because of the nature of the accident, Mickey's best chance of winning his case is to use the Res Ipsa Loquator and argue that both an accident of this nature does not normally happen unless there was negligence at some point and that the water tank was under Clearbrook's exclusive control at the time of the accident. Thus, C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! This is a perfect example of the Res Ipsa Loquator doctrine where the very fact that harm has occurred may itself establish both parts of the breach requirement (what actually happened and that defendant acted unreasonably). The three essential factors which must be established in order to invoke Res Ipsa Loquator are 1) the accident must be of a type which normally does not occur in the absence of negligence, 2) the negligence can be attributed to the defendant because the accident is of a type that the defendant had a duty to guard against, and 3) neither the plaintiff nor any third party contributed to or caused the accident. Here, because of the nature of the accident, Mickey's best chance of winning his case is to use the Res Ipsa Loquator and argue that both an accident of this nature does not normally happen unless there was negligence at some point and that the water tank was under Clearbrook's exclusive control at the time of the accident. Thus, C is the correct answer.
