Question

A housecleaning agency was given a key to a customer's house so that the agency could have its employees clean while the homeowner was away. After a maid sent by the agency had finished and left the homeowner's house, she went back because she had forgotten her cigarettes. She neglected to lock the door when she left the second time because she was already late for the next job. When the homeowner returned after a few days away, she discovered that her house had been ransacked and several items of jewelry stolen. The front door was open, and there were no signs of forced entry.

If the homeowner brings an action against the agency that employed the maid, what is the likely result?
A. She will not prevail, because she is limited to claims for breach of contract based on her agreement with the agency.
B. She will not prevail, because the act of the burglar was an independent superseding cause of the homeowner's loss.
C. She will prevail, because the maid's failure to lock the door created the risk that someone might enter and take the homeowner's valuables.
D. She will prevail, because when the maid returned after having completed her work, she was technically a trespasser, making the agency vicariously liable for any damage she caused to the premises.

Answer 1

C. She will prevail, because the maid's failure to lock the door created the risk that someone might enter and take the homeowner's valuables.

Step-by-step explanation:

The owner of this house would win this case given that the the house cleaners negligence was what exposed her home to criminal activity. Such criminal acts can be foreseen. An open door increases the risk of theft. By not locking the door, the maid was negligent and she caused the theft to happen. This makes the agency liable for the maids negligence since they happen to be her employer