This is ChatGPT's response.. The correct answer is C) No, because the sign did not explain the danger and only told her that it was not available, and she therefore did not know what she was encountering. While the sign warned that the elevator was not available, it did not fully explain the danger of using the elevator or the consequences of doing so. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the city to ensure that their facilities are safe for public use, and the warning sign alone does not absolve them of this responsibility. Therefore, the city may be found liable for negligence in this case. Contributory negligence may be a factor, but it is not a complete defense if the city's own negligence contributed to the accident. Strict liability is also not applicable in this case as the city is not engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.
@constitutionalli7522
3 ай бұрын
Only thing I love more than you guys is this QUIZ format!! Fun!! Love it
@benkellman4577
Жыл бұрын
I got it right! Am I a lawyer now?
@KanyeWestDidNoWrong
Жыл бұрын
Same
@latinkingzgl
Жыл бұрын
Only another 400ish questions and essays to go!
@situational.analysis
3 ай бұрын
Yes. Yes you are.
@chalonw
3 ай бұрын
@@latinkingzgl😅
@walterclements_
Жыл бұрын
if the elevator doors could open for everyone, the sign is the only real barrier stopping someone from falling down the shaft. this is gross negligence
@hinatagirl33
8 ай бұрын
Just got out of torts this semester so I was ready for this exact question 😂
@Alisacrooks4491
Жыл бұрын
Explain why answer choice B is wrong, please.
@BaiBailey22
Жыл бұрын
The sign said the elevator wasn’t available. It didn’t say anything about her getting hurt. She basically found a loophole.
@AM-gm3zx
Ай бұрын
Piece of cake, she is drinking wine like it's hard. Looool
@mateobaysa2055
7 ай бұрын
Piece of cake question…
@shacktime
3 ай бұрын
I know the that reasonable steps also have to be taken to prohibit access to such hazards. Signs alone simply aren’t enough.
@zaf_nz
Жыл бұрын
Is the bar exam all multi-guess?
@Tipperary757
Жыл бұрын
A sign doesnt protect blind ppl. Or non English spking folks. Need physical barrier + int'l falling body (to doom) sign plus braille.
@thomasjefferson6334
6 ай бұрын
Who cares about the non english folks though
@R3DNEWS
Жыл бұрын
I actually got C 😂😂 but i would never have explained it as easy as that.
@757gamerguy2
3 ай бұрын
I got that right! That was actually really easy
@adolfoduarte3719
Жыл бұрын
Ah I thought the second choice was the right one. I'd like to know why it wasn't compared to the third option.
@rickgrimes2056
7 ай бұрын
I got it right! Now like 399 more to go
@situational.analysis
3 ай бұрын
Are they all this easy? Also, what if the victim didn't read english. That's more liability on the city.
@kolverius
8 ай бұрын
being honest that comon sense because im not a lawyer and never study and I got it rigth tho or im genuis? nah i dont think so.
@superpantman
Жыл бұрын
I got it wooo!
@WilliamKalagayan
Жыл бұрын
was easy for me
@dfinite1111
Жыл бұрын
Whoa, missed the answer 2 times. It is too short a video or maybe it’s all rushed into the end? What is the darn correct answer, please? Maybe my ears aren’t as young anymore?
@Paveli16
6 ай бұрын
thanks I thought B but hey you never know what question might stump you these days.
@midashaymaker8308
5 ай бұрын
Seems easy tbh. Bunch of Moron lawyers…
@David_Mash
Жыл бұрын
Attractive nuisance territory
@rexb0254
Жыл бұрын
No, applicable only to children. And a broken elevator likely wouldn’t constitute an attractive nuisance regardless
Пікірлер: 33