B-24
ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 7
NEGLIGENCE AND STRICT LIABILITY
7-1A. Liability to business invitees
(Chapter 7—Pages 137–139)
Yes to both questions. Motel owners have a duty to protect their guests, and Scottish Inns breached
that duty by failing to provide more secure locks on its room doors. Historically, under the common law
7-2A. Duty to business invitees
(Chapter 7—Pages 137–139)
Business owners have a duty of care toward their customers (because the owners are in a better
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 7 B-25
use.” Thus, the court held that it was reasonably foreseeable that a customer would collide with the
7-3A. Strict liability
(Chapter 7—Page 147)
The court agreed with the Kleins, applying the rule that “any party carrying on an ‘abnormally dangerous
activity’ is strictly liable for ensuing damages.” The court looked to the factors listed in the Restatement
7-4A. Tort theories
(Chapter 7—Pages 139–141)
Addis and Reed contended in part that Tamerlane was negligent. (The elements of a cause based in
negligence include a duty owed to the plaintiff, the defendant’s breach of that duty, and the breach
B-26 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 7
7-5A. Duty of care
(Chapter 7—Pages 137–139)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, applying Louisiana law, noted that “[t]he amount of
caution demanded of a person * * * is the result of three factors: the likelihood that his conduct will
7-6A. Duty to business invitees
(Chapter 7—Pages 136–137)
A jury awarded Gonzalez $100,000, and the store appealed. The state intermediate appellate court
7-7A. Duty of landowners
(Chapter 7—Pages 137–139)
Poteau and the other defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.
Weldon appealed. The state intermediate appellate court reversed the summary judgment and
7–8A. Duty of care
(Chapter 7—Pages 137–139)
The jury found in his favor, and the court denied Wal–Mart’s motion for a directed verdict. Wal-Mart
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the judgment of the lower
7–9A. Elements of negligence
(Chapter 7—Pages 136–137)
In the chapter, you learned the essential elements of negligence: duty, breach, damages, and causation.
A cause of action for negligence may be brought if the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the
plaintiff and the breach caused the plaintiff to suffer a legally recognizable injury. In this case, the
question that is most likely at the center of the dispute is whether the defendant in this case (Speedway)
owed a duty of care to the plaintiff (Mary) who was driving on Route 106 rather than on Speedway’s
property. If Speedway did not owe Mary such a duty, the case will be dismissed. The issue boils down to
this: Did Speedway, by voluntarily assuming the task of directing traffic onto its property from Route
106, also assume a duty of care toward drivers and passengers on Route 106? One could reasonably
B-28 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 7
Ultimately, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that Speedway had voluntarily assumed a
7–10A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. If there were a statute in South Carolina that could be applied to this set of facts, as there
are in some states, it would present a nearly unassailable argument in favor of imposing liability.
In the absence of such a specific law, an alcoholic beverage control statute might provide a basis
for imposing liability, under limited circumstances, on commercial hosts (the owners of bars, for
example). For policy reasons, those circumstances might be limited to the service of alcoholic beverages
to an intoxicated adult to whom recovery might be denied. Commercial entities might also be statutorily
liable for knowingly selling alcoholic beverages to minors, who may be allowed to recover. It could be
argued that liability might extend, under at least the latter statutes, to social hosts. But these statutes
would likely not support imposing a common-law negligence duty on a social host with recovery by an
underage individual who consumed the alcoholic beverages. Why? Because this would impose a higher
2. The contrast in liability and punishments among the states is a consequence of conflicting
public attitudes about underage drinking. Parents who would not approve of their underage children
consuming alcoholic beverages outside their homes, for example, might condone such drinking in their
homes. In that situation, the rationalization might be to keep teenagers off the road and out of other
kinds of trouble. Some might view this attitude and its supporting “reasoning” as what is sometimes
