The plaintiff brings a cause of action. Should she prevail? Why or why not?
| ♥ 0 |
The plaintiff, while dining at the defendant’s restaurant, ordered a chicken potpie. While she was eating, she swallowed a sliver of chicken bone, which became lodged in her throat, causing her serious injury. The plaintiff brings a cause of action. Should she prevail? Why or why not? |
Explanation
The evidence for the arguments is:
The plaintiff can ask a court to organize a test to confirm that the presence of a chicken bone in the pie is dangerous to customers and can cause personal harm. The court can sue the defendant for strict liability after confirming, with the other customers, whether the majority of the customers get the chicken bone in the dish.
The plaintiff claim for strict liability of the defendant toward the potentially-dangerously dish is not going to be entertained by the court if the defendant proves that using the chicken bones in the pie is the process to make the dish and the plaintiff has not taken due care while eating the same.
Sample Response
The following are the two arguments:
The plaintiff is going to prevail in claiming the liability against the defendant by proving that the chicken bone in dish is dangerous for the customers.
The plaintiff is not going to prevail in the argument of claiming the liability from the defendant by failing in proving that the chicken bone in dish is dangerous.
