Answer:
Explanation:
Full question
Blow up." Jeanie is hauling gas in the back of her pick-up truck for her personal watercraft. She is planning a lake party and thinks she will need a lot of it. On the way home, Jeanie stops at the automatic teller machine at her bank and exits her car. Holly pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Jeanie's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Holly for negligence claiming that Holly should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claimed that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
A. The bank is correct because under that doctrine defendants are liable for any harm caused.
B. The bank is correct only if Holly has sufficient insurance to cover the bank burning.
C. The bank is correct only if it can be established that Holly was a repeat driving offender.
D. The bank is incorrect because the issue here is causation, not whether there was a lack of due care.
E. The bank is incorrect because res ipsa loquitur is a defense.
The bank is incorrect because the issue here is causation, not whether there was a lack of due care. The bank should be more concerned about what caused the explosion which really had nothing to do with Holly but why did the pick-up truck explode. How does Holly parking her car at rear-ends of Jeanie's pick up cause an explosion due to negligence. What is the prove
The common law of negligence, the res ipsa loquitur doctrine states that a breach of a party's duty of care may be inferred from the events that occurred. In other words, the negligence is so noticeable that you can tell that someone had a negligent hand in what happened.
