benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / A hotel guest suffered personal injuries from a fire started by an arsonist. The…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

A hotel guest suffered personal injuries from a fire started by an arsonist. The hotel had no sprinkler systems or smoke detectors. After settling with the hotel, the guest sued the manufacturer of the carpet that was in her room and elsewhere in the hotel. The carpet caused the fire to spread rapidly due to its easy flammability. Evidence proved that the manufacturer knew of the product's flammability and that it would be used in buildings lacking proper safety measures. The manufacturer argued that the hotel's negligence and the criminal act of the arsonist were both superseding causes, thus abrogating the manufacturer's liability as a matter of law. How did the trial court most likely rule on that issue?

choices

  1. The intervening causes relieved the manufacturer of liability.
  2. The intervening causes did not relieve the manufacturer of liability.
  3. The intervening causes were irrelevant due to the strict liability of the manufacturer.
  4. By not suing the arsonist first, the guest waived her right to sue the manufacturer.

subject

professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

Official source

initial import