Question

After a long meeting in an ofice building in Maryland with some executives of the company, Jane enters an elevator in the building owned by Hi-Flyer, Inc., and presses the button for the floor she wants to reach. The doors to the elevator close and suddenly the elevator goes into free fall, stopping abruplly at the lobby. Jane is seriously hurt and sues Hi-Flyer for damages. Upon receipt of the complaint. Hi-Flyer moves for summary judgment, noting that, while it is clear that Jane did fall, she has never proven, or for that matter even offored a theory as to why the elevator functioned incorrectly. Therefore, argues Hi-Flyer, there is no evidence that thay were at fault.

If Jane decides to amend her complaint and propose a theory, which of the follwing would form parts of Jane's. theory of the case?
a- The falling elevator is clearly an example of the tort of criminal negligence.
b- Res ipsa Loquitur.
c- Jane was an invitee and High Flyer thus owed her the highest duty of care, including regular inspections to discover potentially dangerous conditions in their building that they might not otherwise be aware of.
d- All of the above.
e- Both 1 and 2 .
f- Both 2 and 3.

Answer 1

Jane could amend her complaint to include theories based on Res ipsa Loquitur, as well as the high duty of care Hi-Flyer owed her as an invitee, which entails regular safety inspections. This approach does not involve alleging criminal negligence.

Step-by-step explanation:

When Jane decides to amend her complaint against Hi-Flyer, Inc., she could propose a theory based on Res ipsa Loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). This legal doctrine allows the court to infer negligence from the very nature of the accident, under the assumption that such events do not happen without negligence.

Furthermore, as Jane was an invitee to the company, Hi-Flyer owed her a high duty of care, which includes conducting regular inspections to discover potentially dangerous conditions. Jane need not propose that the falling elevator was an example of criminal negligence as that involves a higher standard of recklessness or intentional harm than what is commonly pursued in a tort claim for damages arising from negligence.

As the question asked which of the listed theories would form parts of Jane's theory of the case, the most appropriate answer is f - Both 2 and 3. This includes the legal principle of Res ipsa Loquitur and the fact that Jane was an invitee, which endowed Hi-Flyer with a responsibility to ensure the safety of the elevator.

Answer 2

Jane could amend her complaint to include theories based on Res ipsa Loquitur, as well as the high duty of care Hi-Flyer owed her as an invitee, which entails regular safety inspections. This approach does not involve alleging criminal negligence.

Step-by-step explanation:

When Jane decides to amend her complaint against Hi-Flyer, Inc., she could propose a theory based on Res ipsa Loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). This legal doctrine allows the court to infer negligence from the very nature of the accident, under the assumption that such events do not happen without negligence.

Furthermore, as Jane was an invitee to the company, Hi-Flyer owed her a high duty of care, which includes conducting regular inspections to discover potentially dangerous conditions. Jane need not propose that the falling elevator was an example of criminal negligence as that involves a higher standard of recklessness or intentional harm than what is commonly pursued in a tort claim for damages arising from negligence.

As the question asked which of the listed theories would form parts of Jane's theory of the case, the most appropriate answer is f - Both 2 and 3. This includes the legal principle of Res ipsa Loquitur and the fact that Jane was an invitee, which endowed Hi-Flyer with a responsibility to ensure the safety of the elevator.

Answer 3

Jane could amend her complaint to include theories based on Res ipsa Loquitur, as well as the high duty of care Hi-Flyer owed her as an invitee, which entails regular safety inspections. This approach does not involve alleging criminal negligence.

Step-by-step explanation:

When Jane decides to amend her complaint against Hi-Flyer, Inc., she could propose a theory based on Res ipsa Loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). This legal doctrine allows the court to infer negligence from the very nature of the accident, under the assumption that such events do not happen without negligence.

Furthermore, as Jane was an invitee to the company, Hi-Flyer owed her a high duty of care, which includes conducting regular inspections to discover potentially dangerous conditions. Jane need not propose that the falling elevator was an example of criminal negligence as that involves a higher standard of recklessness or intentional harm than what is commonly pursued in a tort claim for damages arising from negligence.

As the question asked which of the listed theories would form parts of Jane's theory of the case, the most appropriate answer is f - Both 2 and 3. This includes the legal principle of Res ipsa Loquitur and the fact that Jane was an invitee, which endowed Hi-Flyer with a responsibility to ensure the safety of the elevator.