1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
gizmo_the_mogwai [7]
3 years ago
5

Case 4.3, Taylor v. Baseball Club of Seattle, L.P., involved a Mariners fan, Delinda Middleton Taylor, who was injured by a base

ball that entered the stands during team warm-ups. The issue in the case was a. whether the risk of injury from an errant baseball was foreseeable to a reasonable person with Taylor's familiarity with baseball. b. whether the ball was thrown into the stands intentionally. c. whether Taylor suffered a legally recognizable injury. d. false imprisonment.
Law
1 answer:
Doss [256]3 years ago
8 0

Answer:

a

Explanation:

Taylor v Baseball club of seattle case was filed by Taylor against Baseball club of Seattle for being negligent. The baseball club in their defence argued that Taylor was quite familiar with the game and the fact that there is a chance that a ball can hit a spectator.

You might be interested in
To what principle of the constitution does this excerpt best relate?
Norma-Jean [14]

Answer:like this if u ready for the answer

Explanation:

7 0
4 years ago
Project: A Supreme Court Case
AveGali [126]

Answer:

\red{ \rule{0pt}{100000pt}} \orange{ \rule{0pt}{100000pt}} \color{yellow}{ \rule{0pt} {100000pt}} \green{ \rule{0pt} {100000pt}} \blue{ \rule{0pt} {100000pt}} \purple{ \rule{0pt} {100000pt}}

5 0
3 years ago
Over time, the supreme court has been more restrictive in its protection of the right to privacy.
nexus9112 [7]

The Supreme Court has not become more restrictive in protecting the right to privacy, so this claim is false.

We can arrive at this answer because:

  • The Supreme Court understood that the right to privacy is essential to protect citizens, especially those involved in marginalized situations.
  • For this reason, the Supreme Court decided to expand the privacy rights and not restrict them as shown in the question above.

This supreme court attitude is intended to promote greater protection for individuals who are marginalized and who may suffer intolerant and life-threatening attacks.

More information:

brainly.com/question/1145825?referrer=searchResults

8 0
3 years ago
Why doesn't amane enjoy my presence?? :/
irina1246 [14]
Find new friends that’s what I did
4 0
3 years ago
Missouri traditionally has power over which of the following areas?
Marta_Voda [28]
Educación Because que se han hecho en la ciudad y no han podido ser muy fuertes porque el mundo se han convertido
6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Example of institutional model​
    7·1 answer
  • A person born inside the US is considered a citizen because of the--- law of soil or law of blood ?
    5·1 answer
  • Explain why someone may still be tracked by family members DNA profile even though they will not be an exact match
    5·1 answer
  • What do park rangers go?
    6·2 answers
  • Importance of ubuntu in our democratic society​
    9·1 answer
  • Defendant is accused of the wrong doing?
    7·1 answer
  • When convicted of multiple crimes, what kind of sentences must be served separately?
    14·2 answers
  • How a hearing or court case is conducted is governed by.
    9·1 answer
  • Under florida law, what must be onboard a boat while towing a water-skier?.
    12·2 answers
  • You are a supervisor pondering a possible ethical issue. Which word indicates you are approaching motivational blindness?
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!