Question

Judy, a ten-year-old child, was seriously injured when she got her hand stuck reaching into the plush animal claw machine in the waiting area of a restaurant. Her parents sued the restaurant where the incident occurred, claiming it should have had child protective guards on the machine. Whether the restaurant is liable will be dependent upon whether:

Option 1: The restaurant had a duty to protect children from harm.
Option 2: The child was supervised by her parents.
Option 3: The restaurant had insurance coverage.
Option 4: The child assumed the risk of injury by playing with the machine.

Answer 1

The liability of the restaurant for Judy's injury would primarily depend on whether the restaurant had a duty to protect children from harm. This includes considerations of premises liability and the attractive nuisance doctrine. The other options—child's supervision, insurance coverage, and assumption of risk—are less central to the legal determination.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question pertains to the liability of the restaurant in the case where Judy, a ten-year-old child, sustained injuries from a claw machine on the restaurant’s premises. When determining the liability of the restaurant, several factors are considered, but primarily, the court would consider if the restaurant had a duty to protect children from harm (Option 1).

This duty is known as premises liability, which requires property owners to ensure that their premises are reasonably safe for visitors. In the context of child visitors, this duty can be heightened due to the doctrine of attractive nuisance, which acknowledges that children may not recognize potential dangers the way adults do.

Whether the child was supervised by her parents (Option 2) or if the restaurant had insurance coverage (Option 3) are less likely to impact the legal determination of the restaurant's liability, but could be relevant to the specifics of the case.

Option 4, wherein the child assumed the risk of injury, is typically a defense in tort cases that involves an individual voluntarily encountering a known hazard. However, this defense is less applicable to children due to their inability to fully appreciate risks. The real question is whether appropriate safety measures were in place and whether a reasonable effort was made to prevent foreseeable harm to children.

Comparatively, in the provided counter example situation, liability clearly falls on the babysitter who negligently left hazardous materials accessible to children. In the restaurant's case, if similar negligence can be established — that is, they failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent children from accessing dangerous parts of the claw machine — they could be held responsible.