Question

A warehouse located in an urban area had been vacant for several years. Although the warehouse was not being used, the owner of the warehouse maintained the building in conformity with all state and local laws and regulations. One evening, thieves entered the warehouse and stripped the copper wiring from the building. In the process, the thieves damaged a stone cornice above the warehouse’s main entryway. Shortly thereafter, the cornice collapsed and injured a pedestrian. The pedestrian initiated a negligence suit against the warehouse owner, and the warehouse owner filed a motion to dismiss the case.

Which of the following findings would be sufficient to support the warehouse owner’s motion to dismiss?

A. The theft of the copper wiring was an unforeseeable intervening cause of the cornice collapse.
B. The copper wire theft and the cornice collapse were unforeseeable.
C. The pedestrian was more than half at fault for the injuries sustained.
D. The warehouse owner had maintained the building in conformity with state and local laws and regulations.

Answer 1

The correct answer would be option A, The theft of the copper wiring was an unforeseeable intervening cause of the cornice collapse.

Step-by-step explanation:

The owner of the warehouse has been taking care of the warehouse despite the fact that the warehouse was not in the use of anyone. Although the warehouse was not being used, the owner has maintained the building in conformity with all state and local laws and regulations. Now the incident happened due to the theft of the copper wire, due to which the cornice collapsed. This was totally unforeseeable and there was not even a little mistake of the owner, also he has been maintaining the warehouse in conformity with the laws of the area, the owner can easily file a motion to dismiss the case.