Question 1

In Stewart v.Federated Department Stores,a woman's estate successfully sued Bloomingdale's for failing to adequately guard one of the store's parking lots,where she was murdered.

Accepted Answer

The statement accurately describes the outcome of the Stewart v. Federated Department Stores case.

Question 2

Since customers are invited to be on business property,the owners have a duty to make the property safe from falls.

Accepted Answer

Customers have the right to expect a safe environment when they are invited onto business property, and it is the responsibility of the owners to ensure that the property is free from hazards that could cause falls or accidents. This duty is referred to as the “duty of care,” and it applies to all business owners who invite customers onto their property.

Question 3

Unless a person makes a purchase at a store,they do not have the status of a customer and so are not owed special care against dangers from slippery spots.

Accepted Answer

This statement is false. Even if a person does not make a purchase at a store, they still have the status of a visitor or invitee and the store has a duty to provide a safe environment and warn of any potential hazards, including slippery spots.

Question 4

In Erichsen v.No-Frills Supermarket,Erichsen was serious hurt when robbed in the store parking lot.The Nebraska high court held the store could be liable in negligence for failure to provide better security.

Accepted Answer

The statement accurately summarizes the holding of the Nebraska high court in Erichsen v. No-Frills Supermarket.

Question 5

In Campisi v.Acme Markets,Campisi was injured when she tripped over the cane of a blind employee of the store.The appeals court held that the store was not negligent as the cane was an obvious danger that should have been avoided.

Accepted Answer

The statement accurately summarizes the holding of the case Campisi v. Acme Markets.

Question 6

Fortunately for businesses,slip and fall cases are rarely successful,so not common.

Accepted Answer

This statement is false. Slip and fall cases can result in successful lawsuits and can occur frequently, making it important for businesses to take proper precautions to prevent such accidents.

Question 7

In Campisi v.Acme Markets,Campisi was injured when she tripped over the cane of a blind employee of the store.The appeals court held that while the store was not negligent in its treatment of the customer,the employee was,and could be liable.

Accepted Answer

The appeals court held that the store was not negligent and neither was the employee, as the employee's actions were not unreasonable given their disability.

Question 8

In Erichsen v.No-Frills Supermarket,Erichsen was serious hurt when robbed in the store parking lot.The Nebraska high court held the store was not liable in negligence for failure to provide better security because the attack was a random criminal event that could not have been reasonably expected.

Accepted Answer

The answer of In Erichsen v.No-Frills Supermarket,Erichsen was serious hurt...

Question 9

In Campisi v.Acme Markets,Campisi was injured when she tripped over the cane of a blind employee of the store.The appeals court held that the store was negligent as the Americans with Disabilities Act allows blind persons to use canes.

Accepted Answer

The statement is incorrect. The appeals court would likely have held that the store was negligent for failing to provide a safe environment for its customers, regardless of the employee's disability status. The ADA does not specifically address liability in this type of situation.

Question 10

In Stewart v.Federated Department Stores,where a woman's estate sued Bloomingdale's for failing to adequately guard one of the store's parking lots,the court held that the security was not negligent under the circumstances.

Accepted Answer

The answer of In Stewart v.Federated Department Stores,where a woman's...

Question 11

In Campisi v.Acme Markets,Campisi was injured when she tripped over the cane of a blind employee of the store.The appeals court held that the store was negligent for not warning customers of the employee and his cane.

Accepted Answer

The appeals court did not hold the store negligent for not warning customers about the employee and his cane. The court found that the store was not liable because the cane was not an unexpected hazard and the employee was using it in a normal manner.

Quiz 8: Real and Personal Property